Skip to main content

Full text of "Studies in Intellectual History"

See other formats 


BRILL’S STUDIES 
IN 

INTELLECTUAL HISTORY 


General Editor 

A.J. Vanderjagt, University of Groningen 

Editorial Board 

M. Colish, Oberlin College 
J.I. Israel, University College, London 
J.D. North, University of Groningen 
H.A. Oberman, University of Arizona, Tucson 
R.H. Popkin, Washington University, St. Louis-UCLA 

VOLUME 44 



' > 6 8 ' 





The synagogue of Talmud Tora, 1639, etching by J.J. Veenhuysen 

(H.P. Salomon collection, New York). 


mmm 































URIEL DA COSTA 


EXAMINATION OF 
PHARISAIC TRADITIONS 

Exame das tradigoes phariseas 

Facsimile of the unique copy 
in the Royal Library of Copenhagen 

SUPPLEMENTED BY 

SEMUEL DA SILVA’S 

TREATISE 

ON THE IMMORTALITY 
OF THE SOUL 

Tratado da immortalidade da alma 


TRANSLATION, NOTES AND INTRODUCTION 
BY 

H. P. SALOMON and I. S. D. SASSOON 



✓ s 

' ' 6 8 ^ ' 


E.J. BRILL 

LEIDEN • NEW YORK • KOLN 
1993 



The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the 
Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library 
Resources. 


Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

Acosta Uriel, ca. 1585-1640. 

(Exame das tradi^oes phariseas conferidas com a lei escrita. 

English & Portuguese) 

Examination of Pharisaic traditions = Exame das tradi^oes 
phariseas : facsimile of the unique copy in the Royal Library of 
Copenhagen / Uriel da Costa ; translation, notes, and introduction 
by H.P. Salomon and I.S.D. Sassoon. 

p. cm. — (Brill’s studies in intellectual history, ISSN 
0920-8607 ; v. 44) 

“Supplemented by Semuel da Silva’s Treatise on the immortality of 
the soul = Tratado da immortalidade da alma.” 

Includes bibliographical references and index. 

ISBN 9004099239 

1. Judaism—Controversial literature—Early works to 1800. 

2. Immortality—Judaism—Controversial literature—Early works to 
1800. 3. Judaism—Apologetic works—Early works to 1800. 

I. Salomon, H. P. (Herman Prins), 1935- II. Sassoon, I. S. D. 
III. Silva, Semuel da. Tratado da immortalidade da alma. English & 
Portuguese. 1993. IV. Kongelige Bibliotek (Denmark) V. Title. 
VI. Title: Exame das tradi^oes phariseas. VII. Series. 

BM585.A2613 1993 

296—dc20 93-26266 

CIP 


ISSN 0920-8607 
ISBN 90 04 09923 9 

© Copyright 1993 by E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands 

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in 
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, 
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written 
permission of the publisher. 

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal 
use is granted by E.J. Brill provided that 
the appropriate fees are paid directly to Copyright 
Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, Salem MA 
01970, USA. Fees are subject to change. 

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS 



CONTENTS 

List of Illustrations. IX 

Prologue . XI 

Glossary of Hebrew Words . XV 

Abbreviations . XVII 

Norms . XVIII 

Bibliography . XIX 

Introduction . 1 

1. The Life of Uriel da Costa. 1 

2. Uriel da Costa and Leon Modena. 24 

3. Samuel da Silva and Leon Modena. 29 

4. Uriel da Costa and Samuel da Silva. 32 

5. The Question of the Soul's Immortality Placed in 

Historical Perspective . 38 

6. Jewish Views on Eschatology . 42 

7. The Aftermath . 48 

Facsimile of URIEL DA COSTA: EXAME DAS TRADI^OES 

PHARISEAS . 51 

Translation of URIEL DA COSTA: EXAMINATION OF PHA¬ 
RISAIC TRADITIONS . 267 

PART I 

To the Reader. 269 

Chapter 1 . 271 

Chapter 2 . 277 

Chapter 3 . 281 

Chapter 4 . 283 

Chapter 5 . 285 

Chapter 6 . 287 


























VI 


CONTENTS 


Chapter 7 . 288 

Chapter 8 . 290 

Chapter 9 . 293 

Chapter 10 . 294 

Chapter 11 . 297 

Chapter 12 . 298 

Chapter 13 . 300 

Chapter 14 . 302 

PART II 

Preface . 307 

Chapter 1 . 311 

Chapter 2 . 319 

Chapter 3 . 340 

Chapter 4 . 344 

Chapter 5 . 345 

Chapter 6 . 348 

Chapter 7 . 352 

Chapter 8 . 354 

Chapter 9 . 361 

Chapter 10 . 367 

Chapter 11 . 374 

Chapter 12 . 377 

Chapter 13 . 381 

Chapter 14 . 385 

Chapter 15 . 391 

Chapter 16 . 397 

Chapter 17 . 401 

Chapter 18 . 406 

Chapter 19 . 412 

Chapter 20. 415 

Question . 420 

Translation of SAMUEL DA SILVA: TREATISE ON THE IMMOR¬ 
TALITY OF THE SOUL. 427 

To the Gentle Reader. 429 

Chapter 1 . 433 

Chapter 2 . 434 

Chapter 3 . 436 

Chapter 4 . 437 







































CONTENTS 


VII 


Chapter 5 . 441 

Chapter 6 . 443 

Chapter 7 . 444 

Chapter 8 . 447 

Chapter 9 . 451 

Chapter 10 . 454 

Chapter 11 . 456 

Chapter 12 . 459 

Chapter 13 . 462 

Chapter 14 . 465 

Chapter 15 . 470 

Chapter 16 . 476 

Chapter 17 . 479 

Chapter 18 . 485 

Chapter 19 . 488 

Chapter 20 . 495 

Chapter 21 . 501 

Chapter 22 . 505 

Chapter 23 . 513 

Chapter 24 . 520 

Chapter 25 . 523 

Chapter 26 . 527 

Chapter 27 . 529 

Chapter 28 . 530 

Chapter 29 . 534 

Chapter 30 . 538 

Last Chapter . 546 

Appendix 1: Document transcribed by Uriel da Costa (1601) 555 
Appendix 2: Confirmation of Uriel’s Excommunication (1623) 556 
Appendix 3: Exemplar humanae vitae, 1640 (?). 556 

Index of biblical references. 567 

Index of proper names. 573 

Index of subject matters and terms. 577 



































LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 


The synagogue of Talmud Torn, 1639, etching by J.J. Veenhuysen 
(H.P. Salomon collection, New York), frontispiece. 


1. Genealogical Charts 

I. Jacome da Costa, paternal grandfather of Uriel da Costa. 

II. Dinis Eanes, Maternal Grandfather of Uriel da Costa. 

III. Related Families. 

2. Rua de Sao Miguel, Oporto, anno 1993 

3. Document transcribed and signed by Uriel da Costa, Coimbra, 1601 
(British Library) 

4. Portrait of Leon Modena (Detail enlaged from the title page of the 
1638 Venice edition of his Historia de’ riti hebraici) 

5. Confirmation of Uriel da Costa's excommunication, Amsterdam, 
1623 (Gemeente Archief, Amsterdam) 

6. Semuel da Silva, Tratado da Immortalidade da Alma, Amsterdam, 
1623, title page (Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, Amsterdam) 


7. Houtkopersdwarsstraat (< olim Vloonburghsteeg), Amsterdam, anno 
1993 




PROLOGUE 


Uriel da Costa, whose long-lost book Exame das tradigdes phariseas 
is here presented for the first time, is a name not unfamiliar even 
outside Portugal, where he was born, and the Netherlands, his last 
home. Whether viewed as hero or heretic (and that latter epithet is 
still capable of rousing emotions), he has certainly exercised a fascina¬ 
tion upon generations of artists, scholars and, above all, historians 
of thought. 

Over the centuries he has been portrayed variously as a symbol 
of enlightenment thwarted by obscurantism; as the archetypal "loner” 
braving the philistine "establishment”; as a precursor of Spinoza's 
biblical criticism and naturalistic thought; as a doctrinally or ata- 
vistically inspired "marrano.” 

The main source for all such appraisals of da Costa has been his 
autobiography, the Exemplar Humanae Vitae, first published in 1687, 
nearly half a century after his death. There were, to be sure, those who 
questioned its authenticity, some going so far as to name a forger, 
Johannes Muller, a Hamburg clergyman, who was the first to mention 
and quote the Exemplar. Yet most scholars felt all along that the 
Exemplar was authentic, but to prove it was quite another matter. 
For this, independent corroborative documentation was called for. 

In the Exemplar the author alludes to a book he had written which 
had been confiscated. A certain doctor Samuel da Silva, who will loom 
large in the ensuing saga, published a refutation of three chapters by 
da Costa which he had somehow managed to obtain. In the course of 
his refutation da Silva transcribes this segment in extenso , the better 
to attack it. Since da Silva's book had survived, here then was a reliable 
sample of da Costa's writing and thought. The subject of this text is 
philosophy, and as such is not overtly autobiographical. Yet its style 
is not so detached as to be devoid of circumstantial information about 
the author's personal history. Nevertheless, due to their scantiness, 
these clues hardly allowed a resolution of the question of the Exemplar's 



XII 


PROLOGUE 


authenticity. Still, those da Costa fragments quoted by da Silva were 
seminal enough to be studied in their own right and tantalizing enough 
to stimulate curiosity and whet the appetite for more. But what chance 
was there of da Costa's long-since suppressed volume resurfacing? 

A 1632 Spanish Inquisitor's "Index of Prohibited Books” showed 
that a copy had found its way to Spain. Da Costa's book turns up again 
in a catalogue of a 1728 auction held at The Hague, in one lot with da 
Silva's "Immortality of the Soul.” These two trails nourished hopes of 
finding a copy in a European library. 

In 1987, in the splendid catalogue of Exodo, the Portuguese in 
Amsterdam, 1600-1680 (an exhibition held at the Amsterdam Historical 
Museum and later at Lisbon's Museum of Ancient Art), Dr. Adri K. 
Offenberg contributed a nearly exhaustive bibliographical census of 
the early Spanish and Portuguese books printed in the Northern 
Netherlands, the major, glaring hiatus therein being da Costa's 
confiscated book. Offenberg wistfully entitled his study Exame das 
tradigoes, quoting the first three words of the lost book's title. Hard 
upon this publication, a concerted effort was made by Dr. Offenberg, 
Dr. H. den Boer and ourselves to locate a copy of da Costa's missing 
work, identifiable only through its title and the brief description 
provided by the Spanish Inquisitor. In 1978 Offenberg had found in 
Wolfenbiittel the elusive Primera Parte del Sedur (1612), one of the 
earliest jewish prayerbooks printed in Amsterdam. A later search for 
Uriel's Exame, however, proved futile. 

In 1986 Den Boer had discovered in Madrid the Orden de oraciones 
de mes arreo, the first book in Spanish to be printed in the Northern 
Netherlands, previously unknown to bibliographers, which came off 
the press at Dordrecht on February 26 1584. Den Boer also located there 
two copies of an earlier work by Dr. Samuel da Silva, but still no Exame. 

Libraries which owned a copy of Dr. da Silva's "Treatise on the 
Immortality of the Soul” were visited on a hunch, based on the descrip¬ 
tion in the 1728 auction catalogue, that a copy of Uriel da Costa's book 
might conceivably be found together with Dr. da Silva's. All to no avail. 
Other clues led to the Bibliotheque Mazarine, the Bibliotheque Muni¬ 
cipal de Rouen, the University Library of Namur, the Marciana in 
Venice, the Academy of Sciences in Budapest, the Municipal Archives 
and the Municipal Library of Bordeaux — but not to the Exame. Scan¬ 
dinavian libraries, consistently absent from Hispano-Portuguese judaica 
bibliographies, looked unpromising. An attempt was nevertheless made 
in that direction. Although its judaica collection had been previously 
combed in search of 17th century Spanish and Portuguese works 



PROLOGUE 


XIII 


printed in the Netherlands, the Royal Library in Copenhagen was the 
first to be approached. Attending to our enquiry, Mr. Egon Keck, a 
librarian on the staff of the judaica section, struck gold: the treasure 
had lain dormant on the shelves of the General Collection, alongside 
a copy of the da Silva treatise. If the provenance of these volumes was 
the library of Otto Thott, who visited the Netherlands in the late 1720's, 
then they may well be the very ones auctioned in 1728. 

Professor Rena Fuks-Mansfeld of the University of Amsterdam 
stated the task which devolved upon the finders to be the urgent publica¬ 
tion of da Silva's text along with da Costa's. She rationalized this 
desideratum thus: 


The two are interconnected, as is evident even before reading them, 
just from their titles. It is only through both texts, preferably accom¬ 
panied by an English translation, that a true evaluation can be made, 
not only of these gentlemen's respective positions, but of the entire spec¬ 
trum of the Portuguese emigres' religious attitudes in the twenties of 
the seventeenth century: from the most provocative radicalism to the 
most dyed in the wool orthodoxy [...] Thanks to these invaluable sources 
the entire religious background of the 'New Christian turned Jewish’ 
society of those days will open up. 


Our initial perusal vindicated Prof. Fuks' words as more than 
half of da Costa's book turned out to be a counter-reply to da Silva. 
An edition of the one without the other would indeed have been a 
sorry mutilation. 

Accordingly, an annotated translation of the two works is herewith 
offered the English-speaking public. Clarity has been the translators' 
overriding goal. And even though the baroque flavour of the original 
has not been totally eliminated, it is unlikely that the reader's 
comprehension will thereby be blunted. 

The Introduction partially reconstructs Uriel da Costa's life on the 
basis of documents; analyses the literary relationship between da Costa, 
da Silva and Leon Modena, the Venetian rabbi; places the main topic 
of both books in historical perspective. 

We gratefully acknowledge the valuable assistance of our friends 
Jan Wim Wesselius, Antonio M. Feijo, Joao-Felix Almeida, Andrew 
Gluck, Harm den Boer, Frits Hoogewoud, Adri K. Offenberg, and, last 
but not least, the encouragement of Jose de Pina Martins who always 
claimed that os objectos nobres procuram aqueles que os amam. 




GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL HEBREW WORDS 


’aggada = 

caser = 
dinim = 
hakam (pi. hakamim) - 

hallel = 

kipur = 
lulab = 

mahamad = 
man = 
masiah = 
misva = 
pamassim — 

peri c a = 
pesa/i = 
qohelet = 
ros hodes = 
sabbat = 
sisit = 
tefila = 
tefillin = 
teva ( teba ) = 


homeletic discourse in Talmudic literature, as opposed to legal 

discourse (halaha) 

food jews are permitted to eat 

jewish precepts 

sage(s) or religious leader(s) especially in Sephardic con¬ 
gregations 

psalms 113-118, forming one of the most ancient components 

of the festival liturgy 

atonement 

palm frond (or the four botanical species) carried on the feast 
of Tabernacles 

governing board of Sephardic congregation 

manna 

Messiah 

fulfilment of commandments, meritorious deed, religious duty 

lay leaders or wardens, especially of Sephardic congregation 

(singular: pamas) 

part of the circumcision rite 

Passover 

Ecclesiastes 

first day(s) of new month in the jewish calendar 
sabbath 

token threads attached to four comers of prayer shawl 

prayer 

phylacteries 

raised platform in center of Sephardic synagogue where the 
precentor recites the prayers, the Law is read, etc. 




ABBREVIATIONS 


BIBLE 


Gn. 

= Genesis 

Ezek. 

= 

Ezekiel 

Ex. 

= Exodus 

Hag. 

= 

Haggai 

Lv. 

= Leviticus 

Zech. 

= 

Zechariah 

Nm. 

= Numbers 

Mai. 

= 

Malachi 

Dt. 

= Deuteronomy 

Ps. 

= 

Psalms 

Jos. 

= Joshua 

Pr. 

= 

Proverbs 

Jdg. 

= Judges 

Dan. 

= 

Daniel 

ISm. 

= 1 Samuel 

Ne. 

= 

Nehemiah 

2Sm. 

= 2 Samuel 

2Chr. 

= 

2Chronicles 

lKgs. 

= 1 Kings 

S. of S. 

= 

Song of Songs 

2Kgs. 

= 2 Kings 

Lam. 

= 

Lamentations 

Is. 

= Isaiah 

Eccl. 

= 

Ecclesiastes 

Jer. 

= Jeremiah 





TALMUD 

B.T. = Babylonian Talmud 
J.T. = Jerusalem Talmud 



XVIII 


ABBREVIATIONS AND NORMS 


NORMS 


1) Rational division into paragraphs is introduced. 

2) The word Law in the sense of Torah is capitalized. 

3) Biblical and Talmudic citations are identified between brackets. 
Except in the reproduction of da Costa's texts by da Silva, the scrip¬ 
tural citations are typographically set off throughout. 

4) Words or paraphrases supplied by da Costa within biblical cita¬ 
tions are between (J. 

5) Words missing from the printed text are supplied between [ ]. 

6) Direct quotations within paragraphs are indicated by double 
quotation marks; paraphrases of Scriptural texts between single 
quotation marks. 

7) Hebrew names occurring in the text are transliterated as follows: 
the c ayin is rendered by c , the ’alef by an apostrophe ('), all the 
sibilants by "s,” the qof by "q,” the kaf by "k,” the he and the het 
by "h,” the yod by "y ” 

8) All technical Hebrew words are italicized. 

9) Quotations from da Costa in da Silva's book and vice versa are 
indented and in small print. In neither case does this procedure 
imply total identity. 

10) Religions, adherents of religions and adjectives referring to them 
are not capitalized ( e.g ., judaism, jewish, jews; Catholicism, 
catholic, catholics). 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Aboab, Imanuel. Nomologia o discursos legates [Amsterdam], 1629. 

Abreu, Luis Machado de. "O deismo etico de Uriel da Costa,” Revista da Universidade 
de Aveiro/Letras, 1, 1984, 119-130. 

Adelman, Howard Ernest. ''Success and Failure in the 17th-century Ghetto of Venice: 
The Life and Thought of Leon Modena, 1571-1648,” Brandeis University Ph.D. diss., 
1985. 

Albiac, Gabriel. La sinagoga vacia, Madrid, 1987. 

Allen, Don Cameron. Doubt’s Boundless Sea, Skepticism and Faith in the Renaissance, 
Baltimore, 1964. 

Altmann, Alexander. "Etemality of Punishment: A Theological Controversy within the 
Amsterdam Rabbinate in the Thirties of the Seventeenth Century,” Proceedings of 
the American Academy for Jewish Research, 40, 1972 (1973), 1-88. 

Atias, Ishac. Tesoro de Preceptos, Venice, 1627. 

Aurelio, Diogo Pires. "Uriel da Costa: o discurso da vitima,” Analise, 3, 1, 1985, 5-33. 

Azevedo, Pedro de. "O Bocarro Frances e os judeus de Cochim e Hamburgo,” Archivo 
Historico Portuguez, 8, 1910, 194-195. 

Bamas, Linda. "State University at Albany's Indiana Jones Finds Treasure,” Schenec¬ 
tady Gazette, May 12 1991. 

Barzilai, Isaac E. "Finalizing an Issue: Modena's Authorship of the 'Qol Sakhal',” Salo 
Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday (English 
Section), 1, Jerusalem, 1974, 135-166. 

Basto, Artur de Magalhaes. "Alguns documentos ineditos sobre Uriel da Costa,” 
O Instituto, 79, 1930, 1-20. 

-. "Novo documento inedito sobre Uriel da Costa,” O Instituto, 79, 1930, 442-454. 

-. "Nova contribuigao documental para a biografia de Uriel da Costa,” O Instituto, 

81, 1931, 425-463. 

Bessa-Luis, Agustina. Um bicho da terra, Lisbon, 1984. 

Blau, Ludwig, kitbe ha-rab Yehuda Arye Mi-Modena ("The Writings of R. Leon Modena,” 
with an Introduction in German), Budapest, 1905. 

Blumberg, Harry. "The Problem of Immortality in Avicenna, Maimonides and St. Thomas 
Aquinas,” in Harry Austryn Wolf son Jubilee Volume (75th Birthday), 1, Jerusalem, 
1965, 165185. 

Boer, Harm den. "Was Uriel da Costa's 'Examen' seized by the Spanish Inquisition?” 
Studia Rosenthaliana, 23, 1989, 3-7. 

-. La literatura hispanoportuguesa de los sefardi'es de Amsterdam en su contexto 

historicosocial (siglos XVII y XVIII), Amsterdam, 1992. 

Bonifaccio, Baldassare. DelVimmortalita dell’anima, Venice, 1621. 

-. Risposta al manifesto dela signora Sara Copia, Venice, 1621. 



XX 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Brugmans, Henk and Frank, Abraham. Geschiedenis der joden in Nederland, Amsterdam, 
1940. 

Buxtorf, Johann. Synagoga Iudaica das ist Juden Schul, Basel, 1603. 

Cadafaz de Matos, Manuel. "Uriel da Costa, a coragem assumida," Jornal das Letras, 10, 
416, June 26 1990. 

Carvalho, Joao Manuel de Almeida Saraiva de. "The Fellowship of St. Diogo, New Chris¬ 
tian Judaisers in Coimbra in the Early 17th Century," University of Leeds, Ph.D. 
diss., 1990. 

Cassuto, Alfonso. Gedenkschrift anlasslich des 275jahrigen Bestehens der Portugiesisch- 
Jiidischen Gemeinde in Hamburg, Amsterdam, 1927. 

-. "Neue Funde zur altesten Geschichte der portugiesischen Juden in Hamburg," 

Zeitschrift fur de Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland, 2, 1, 1931, 58-73. 

-. "Contribui^ao para a historia dos judeus portugueses em Hamburgo," Biblos, 1933, 

657-670. 

Castro, David Henriques de. Keur van Grafstenen op de Portugees-Israelietische 
Begraafplaats in Ouderkerk-aan-den-Amstel, Leiden, 1883. 

Catalogus Librorum quibus (dum viveret) usus est vir admodum reverendus David Nunes 
Torres, olim rabbinus judaicae lusitaniorum Hagae Comitis, The Hague, 1728. 

Cavallin, Hans Clemens Caesarius. Life After Death, An Enquiry into the Jewish 
Background, Lund, 1974. 

Costa, Uriel da. Exame das tradigdes phariseas conferidas com a Lei escrita, Amsterdam, 
1624. 

-. Une vie humaine, French translation and Introduction by A.-B. Duff and Pierre Kaan, 

Paris, 1926. 

-. Espejo de una vida humana (Exemplar humanae vitae), Critical edition and Spanish 

translation by Gabriel Albiac, Madrid, 1985. 

Costa, Isaac de. Israel en de Volken, Utrecht, 1876. 

Cullman, Oscar. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? The Witness of 
the New Testament, New York, 1958. 

Finkelstein, Louis, "The Jewish Doctrine of Human Immortality," Harvard Divinity 
Bulletin, 1944-1945, 5-39. 

Fishman, Talya. "Kol Sachal's Critique of Rabbinic Tradition," Harvard University Ph.D. 
diss., 1986. 

Fox, Marvin. "The Rabbi and the Heretic," Commentary, 36, 1963, 174-176. 

Gebhardt, Carl. Die Schriften des Uriel da Costa, Amsterdam/Heidelberg/London, 1922. 

Geiger, Abraham. Leon da Modena, Rabbiner zu Venedig (1571-1648). Seine Stellung zur 
Kabbalah, zum Thalmud und zum Christenthume, Breslau, 1856. 

Gilson, Etienne. "Autour de Pomponazzi. Problematique de l'immortalite de Tame en Italie 
au debut du XVI e siecle," Archives d’histoire doctrinale et litteraire du Moyen Age, 
36, 1961, 163-279. 

Gomes, Alvaro. Tractado daperfeigaom da alma/da imortalidade da alma (Introduction 
and Notes by A. Moreira de Sa), Coimbra, 1947. 

Graetz, Heinrich. Geschichte der Juden von der dauernden Ansiedlung der Marranen in 
Holland (1618) bis zum Beginne der Mendelsohn’schen Zeit (1750) (Geschichte der 
Juden von der altesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, 10) (Revised by M. Braun), 
Leipzig, 1897 . 

Grondhal, Paul. "One Scholar's 'Examination' Leads to Rare Religious Book," Albany 
Times Union, November 23, 1990. 

Israel, Menasseh ben. De la Resvrreccion de los muertos, Amsterdam, 1636. 

Jong, Martinus de. "O Tratado da Immortalidade da Alma' de Moses Rephael de Aguilar," 
Biblos, 10, 1934, 488-499. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 


XXI 


Kaplan, Yosef. 'The Social Functions of the 'Herem' in the Portuguese Jewish Community 
of Amsterdam in the Seventeenth Century,” in Dutch Jewish History: Proceedings 
of the Symposium on the History of the Jews in the Netherlands , 1982, Jerusalem, 1984. 

Kellenbenz, Hermann. Sephardim an den Unteren Elbe, Wiesbaden, 1958. 

Kennedy, Leonard A., "Early Jesuits and Immortality of the Soul,” Gregorianum 69, 1, 
1988, 117-131. 

Kristeller, Paul Oskar. "The Theory of Immortality in Marsilio Ficino,” Journal of the 
History of Ideas, 1, 1940, 299-319. 

-. "Two Unpublished 'Questions on the Soul' of Pietro Pomponazzi,” Medievalia et 

humanistica, 9, 1955, 76-101. 

-. "Pier Candido Decembrio and his Unpublished Treatise on the Immortality of the 

Soul,” The Classical Tradition (L. Wallach, ed.), Ithaca, 1966, 536-558. 

Leeuwen, Pieter Jan van, Het Christelijk Onsterfelijkheidsgeloof, The Hague, 1955. 

Lemoyne, Jean. Les Sadduciens, Paris, 1972. 

Leoni, Aron. "Pour l'histoire de la Nation portugaise d'Hambourg: le proces-verbal de 
l'election des premiers sept deputes en 5377 (1617),” Revue des Etudes Juives (in 
press). 

Lieberman, Saul. "Some Aspects of After Life in Early Rabbinic Literature,” in Harry 
Austryn Wolf son Jubilee Volume (75th Birthday), 1965, 495-532. 

Livro de Bet Haim do Kahal Kados de Bet Yahacob (Wilhelmina C. Pieterse, ed.), Assen, 
1970. 

Martin-Achard, Robert. De la mort a la resurrection, Neuchatel, 1956. 

Martins, Abilio. "Um inedito judaico-portugues de Amsterdam, 'Tratado da Imortalidade 
da Alma',” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 5, 1950, 201-220. 

Mason, Steve N., Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, Leiden, 1991. 

Meijer, Jaap. Isaac Da Costa’s Weg naar het Christendom, Amsterdam, 1946. 

-. Encyclopaedia Sefardica Neerlandica, Amsterdam, 1949. 

Meinsma, Karel O. Spinoza et son Cercle, Etude critique historique sur les heterodoxes 
hollandais, (Notes and Bibliography brought up to date by Jean-Pierre Osier), Paris, 
1983. 

Moller, Johann. "Rodericus a Castro,” Cimbria Literata, 2, 135-137. 

Mortera, Saul Levi. Tratado da Verdade da Lei de Moises (Introduction and Notes by 
H. P. Salomon), Coimbra, 1988. 

Nickelsburg, Jr., George W.E. Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in 
Intertestamental Judaism, Cambridge (Mass.), 1972. 

"Notarial Records Relating to the Portuguese Jews in Amsterdam up to 1639,” Studia 
Rosenthaliana, 23, 1, 1989, 110-117; 23, 2, 1989, 203-209; 24, 1, 1990, 68-77; 24, 2, 
1990, 216-225; 25, 1, 1991, 107-118. 

Offenberg, Adri K. "Exame das tradigoes,” in Exodo, Portugezen in Amsterdam, 1600-1680, 
Amsterdam, 1987, 56-63. 

Osier, Jean-Pierre. "Un aspect du judaisme individualiste d'Uriel da Costa,” Cahiers 
Spinoza, 3, 1980, 101-115. 

-. D’Uriel da Costa a Spinoza, Paris, 1983. 

Perles, Joseph. "Eine neuerschlossene Quelle iiber Uriel Acosta,” Monatschrift fur die 
Geschichte des Judenthums, 26, 1877, 193-213. 

Petuchowski (Jakob J.), The Theology of Haham David Nieto, New York, 1954. 

Pieterse, Wilhelmina C. Daniel Levi de Barrios als Geschiedschrijver van de Portugees- 
Israelietische Gemeente te Amsterdam in zijn 'Triumpho del Govierno Popular’, 
Amsterdam, 1968. 

Pluta, Olaf. Kritiker der Unsterblichkeitsdoktrin in Mittelalter und Renaissance, 
Amsterdam, 1986. 



XXII 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Pomponazzi, Pietro. Tractatus de immortalitate animae ("On the Immortality of the Soul”, 
translated by William Henry Hay II, revised and introduced by John Herman 
Randall, Jr., annotated by Paul Oskar Kristeller), in The Renaissance Philosophy 
of Man (Ernst Cassirer, P. O. Kristeller and J. H. Randall, Jr., Editors), Chicago, 
1948, 257-381. 

Porges, Nathan. "Leon Modena uber Uriel da Costa,” Zeitschrift fur hebraische 
Bibliographie, 15, 1911, 80-82. 

-. "Das Wort Pharisaer bei Spinoza,” Monatschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft 

des Judentums, 61, 1917, 150-165. 

-. "Zur Lebensgeschichte Uriel da Costa,” Monatschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft 

des Judentums, 62, 1918, 37-48, 108-124, 199-218. 

-. "Die Anfangsgriinde der Hebraischen und Griechischen Grammatik des Franciscus 

Tissardus,” in Festskrift i anledning af Professor David Simonsens 70-aarige 
fodselsdag, Copenhagen, 1923, 172-187. 

-. "Besprechung von Carl Gebhardt: 'Die Schriften des Uriel da Costa',” Monatschrift 

fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 67, 1923, 210-220. 

-. "Gebhardt's Book on Uriel da Costa,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 19, 1928, 37-74. 

Reda, Vincent. "Philosophic Work Recovered,” University at Albany Update, 14, 7, 
November 7 1990, 1, 4. 

Reese, William L. Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, Eastern and Western Thought, 
Atlantic Highlands (N.J.), 1988. 

The Remarkable Life of Uriel Acosta, an eminent Freethinker, with his reasons for rejec¬ 
ting all revealed religion (includes translation of Exemplar Humanae Vitae by John 
Whiston), London, 1740. 

Remedios, Joaquim Mendes dos. Os Judeus Portugueses em Amsterdam, Coimbra, 1911. 

Revah, Israel Salvator. "Pour l'histoire des nouveaux-chretiens portugais: la relation 
genealogique d’L de M. Aboab,” Boletim Intemacional de Bibliografia Luso-Brasileira, 
2, 1961, 276-312. 

-. "La religion d'Uriel da Costa, Marrane de Porto (d'apres des documents inedits),” 

Revue de l’histoire des religions, 161, 1962, 45-76. 

-. "Les ecrits portugais d'Uriel da Costa,” Annuaire de I’Ecole Pratique des Hautes 

Etudes-IV, 1964, 265-274. 

-. "Du 'marranisme' au judaisme et au deisme: Uriel da Costa et sa famille,” Annuaire 

du College de France, 67, 1967, 515-526; 68, 1968, 562-572; 69, 1969, 576-585; 70, 1970, 
569-577; 72, 1972, 653-662. 

Rosa, Samuel da Silva. "Uriel da Costa en Dr. Samuel da Silva,” De Vrijdagavond, 4, 28 
October 1927, 487-488. 

Roth, Cecil. "Neue Kunde von der Marranen-Gemeinde in Hamburg,” Zeitschrift fiir die 
Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland, 2, 1930, 228-237. 

Salomon, Herman Prins. "Baruch Spinoza, Ishac Orobio de Castro and Haham Mosseh 
Rephael d'Aguilar on the Noachites: A Chapter in the History of Thought,” Arquivos 
do Centro Cultural Portugues, 14, 1979, 253-286. 

-. Os primeiros portugueses de Amesterdao, Braga, 1983. 

-. "La vraie excommunication de Spinoza,” Forum Litterarum Miscel&nea de estudos 

literarios, linguistics e histories oferecidos a 7.7. van den Besselaar (Edited by Hans 
Bots and Maxim Kerkhof. Amsterdam/Maarssen, 1984, 181-199. 

-. Saul Levi Mortera en zijn Traktaat Betreffende de Waarheid van de Wet van Mozes, 

Braga, 1988. 

-. "A Copy of Uriel da Costa's 'Exame das tradigoes phariseas' located in the Royal 

Library of Copenhagen,” Studia Rosenthaliana, 24, 1990, 153-168. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 


XXIII 


-. "Uriel da Costa e as filacterias,” Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade 

de Lisboa (Homenagem a Jose Vitorino de Pina Martins) (in press). 

Saperstein, Marc. "Saul Levi Morteira's Treatise on the Immortality of the Soul',” Studia 
Rosenthaliana, 25, 2, 1991, 131-148. 

Saraiva, Antonio Jose. Inquisigao e Cristaos-Novos, Lisboa, 1985^. 

Schoors, Antoon. "Kohelet: Perspektief op een leven hiema?” in Vie et survie dans les 
civilisations orientates (A. Theodorides, P. Naster, J. Ries, eds.), Louvain, 1983, 
149-157. 

Seeligmann, Sigmund. Bibliographie en Historie, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der eerste 
Sephardim in Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1927. 

Silva, Antonio de Moraes. Diccionario da Lingua Portugueza., Rio de Janeiro and Lisbon, 
1889. 

Silva, Semuel da. Tratado da immortalidade da alma, Amsterdam, 1623. 

-. Tratado da imortalidade da alma (edited by Jesue Pinharanda Gomes), Lisbon, 1982. 

Sonne, Isaiah. "Da Costa Studies,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 22, 1932, 247-293. 

-. "Leon Modena and the Da Costa Circle in Amsterdam,” Hebrew Union College Annual, 

21, 1948, 1-28. 

Stange, Carl. "Zur auslegung dess Aussagen Luthers iiber die Unsterblichkeit der Seele,” 
Zeitschrift fur systematische Theologie, 3, 1926, 735-784. 

Strauss, Leo. Die Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft, Berlin, 
1930 (English translation: Spinoza's Critique of Religion, New York, 1965). 

Sulam, Sarra Copia. Manifesto nel quale e da lei riprouata e destestata Vopinione negante 
Vimmortalita dellanima, falsamente attribuitale dal sig. Baldassare Bonifaccio, 
Venice, 1621. 

Sylva, Samuel da. Tratado de la thesvvah o contricion compuesto per Rabbennu Moseh 
de Egypcio, Amsterdam, 1613. 

-. Livro intitvlado do thesvba qve he contrition en el qual se tratan todos modos 

della, conpvesto por o admiravel chacham rvbi Moseh do Agypto, Francfort [i.e., 
Amsterdam], 1613. 

Teixeira, Antonio Jose. Antonio Homem e a Inquisigao, Coimbra, 1895. 

Tissard, Francois. Grammatica hebraica, Paris, 1508. 

Vasconcelos, Carolina Michaelis de. "Uriel da Costa, Notas Relativas a sua vida e as suas 
obras,” Revista da Universidade de Coimbra, 8, 1922, 237-395. 

-. "Uriel da Costa, Notas suplementares relativas a sua vida e sua obra,” Lusitania, 

Revista de estudos portugueses, 1, 1924, 5-22. 

Vaz Dias, Abraham van Mozes. Uriel Da Costa, Nieuwe bijdrage tot diens levens- 
geschiedenis, Leiden, 1936. 

Williams, George Huntsdon. "Camillus Renatus called also Lysias Philaenus and Paulo 
Ricci (c. 1500 -c. 1575): Forerunner of Socianism, on Individual Immortality,” in 
Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume (75th Birthday), 1, Jerusalem, 1965, 833-851. 

Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Religious Philosophy, Cambridge (Mass.), 1961. 

Zwarts, Jacob. "Joodse Archiefsprokkels: Uriel da Costa in Utrechtse ballingschap (1627),” 
De Vrijdagavond, 8, April 24 1931, 61-64. 




INTRODUCTION 


1. The Life of Uriel da Costa 


Until now the basis of every "Life of Uriel da Costa” has been 
Exemplar Humanae Vitae ("A Specimen of Human Life”), his 
autobiography written in Latin. Enough new material has been brought 
to light by such scholars as A. de Magalhaes Basto, A. M. Vaz Dias, 
I. S. Revah, Y. Kaplan and G. Albiac to allow a reconstruction of Uriel's 
career, filling in the Exemplar’ s sketchy outline. A synthesis of all 
this material confirms Uriel's sometimes impugned authorship of the 
Exemplar. This confirmation is substantiated further by the scattered 
autobiographical allusions in da Costa's Exame das tradigoes phariseas. 
Though written in Portuguese — thus not permitting a true linguistic 
comparison with the Latin of the Exemplar — the Exame betrays 
distinctive Costaesque traits, recognizable to those familiar with the 
Exemplar. (John Whiston's English translation [1740] of the Exemplar 
is included as an appendix to this volume.) 

* 

Uriel da Costa was born in Oporto, Portugal, most probably 
between November 1583 and March 1584. 1 His parents were Bento da 
Costa Brandao (d. Oporto, 1608) and Branca da Costa (nee Branca Dinis, 


l In Portugal he went by his baptismal name Gabriel. It was changed to Uriel at 
his circumcision in Amsterdam. To avoid confusion we call him Uriel throughout this 
introduction, even, anachronistically, when describing his early life in Portugal. For his 
probable date of birth, cf. Israel Salvator Revah, "Du 'marranisme' au judaisme et au 
deisme: Uriel da Costa et sa famille,” College de France: Annuaire [hereafter Annuaire ], 
68, 1968, 562-572: 568. Revah established this date as follows: the baptism of Uriel's eldest 
brother, Jacome, is registered at the Cathedral Church of Oporto on September 14 1580; 



2 


INTRODUCTION 


d. Netherlands, 1628). His paternal grandparents were Jacome da Costa, 
a merchant and tax-farmer (d. Braga, 1573) and Leonor Vaz. From 1563 
on Jacome and Leonor lived in Braga's rua do Souto, the commercial 
hub of the city. Branca da Costa was the daughter of Dinis Eanes and 
Floren^a Fernandes, his second wife. Dinis Eanes, in turn, was the son 
of Alvaro Rodrigues, "the miller” (d. between 1539 and 1541) and 
Violante Rodrigues, both baptized at the time of the 1497 General 
Conversion. 

Jacome da Costa, Uriel's paternal grandfather, had six children: 
Jeronimo da Costa (d. Coimbra, 1589); Gracia da Costa (married Pedro 
de Azevedo at Val Melhorado, near Barcelos); Bento da Costa Brandao 
(Uriel's father); Caterina (or Mecia) da Costa (married Margal Vaz de 
Azevedo at Val Melhorado); Paulo Brandao (married Beatriz Nunes at 
Ponte de Lima 2 ); another daughter married Jeronimo da Fonseca. 

Uriel's father went to Brazil in or around 1575, lured by the 
burgeoning sugar trade. Soon thereafter he returned to his home city 
of Braga. In 1577 he moved to Oporto, where he married Branca Dinis, 
Uriel's mother. 3 Part of Branca's dowry was one of the houses in the 


that of Uriel's younger brother Miguel is registered at the parish church of N.S. da Vitoria 
on January 16 1585, which already narrows down the birth-date to the years 1581-1584. 
Until 1583 Oporto had only one parish, the cathedral's, but in that year the city was divided 
into four parishes and the rua de Sao Miguel where the da Costas lived fell to the parish 
of N.S. da Vitoria. Had Uriel been bom before 1583 his baptism would have been registered 
at the Cathedral; were he bom from 1583 on, his name should be recorded in the records 
of the new parish. However, the first pages, covering baptisms from November 1583 
through the first months of 1584 are missing. Revah concluded that the second son's 
baptism must have appeared on the lost pages. Revah's dating is confirmed by Uriel da 
Costa's statement in his autobiography (Exemplar Humanae Vitae) that in his 25th year, 
after leaving the University of Coimbra in June 1608, he obtained an ecclesiastical benefice 
in a Collegiate Church and an extant document shows him to have been occupying that 
position in August 1609. If he was 25 between June 1608 and August 1609, he must have 
been born in 1583 or 1584. 

2 This lady, by then widowed, was living with her daughter Paula Brandao (or 
Brandoa; Uriel's first cousin) at Amsterdam in 1598. On her family cf. H. P. Salomon, 
Os primeiros portugueses de Amesterdao, Braga, 1983. 

3 Cf. Israel Salvator Revah, Annuaire, 67, 1967, 515-526. Much of the information 
on Uriel's maternal family was gleaned by Revah in the Inquisitorial trials of Uriel's 
maternal grandfather Dinis Eanes and of his great-grandmother Violante Rodrigues (both 
arrested on the charge of "judaizing,” Dinis was reconciled "on a slight suspicion” and 
Violante was acquitted). Dinis Eanes had two children by his first wife (Isabel Nunes, 
Dionlsia de Vitoria) and five by his second (Alvaro Rodrigues, Marguerida Dinis, Jacome 
Rodrigues, Miguel Fernandes and Uriel's mother Branca Dinis). Uriel's uncle Jacome 
Rodrigues went to Amsterdam around 1597, remarried in 1600 and died in May 1604, 
just a few days before Uri Ha-Levi acquired the cemetery at Groet, near Alkmaar, where 



INTRODUCTION 


3 


rua de Sao Miguel, which, in 1492, the Oporto Municipality had granted, 
at king John II's behest, to thirty distinguished jewish families that had 
been expelled from Spain. 4 Documents reproduced by the historian 
Artur de Magalhaes Basto (Director of the District of Oporto Archives, 
1939-1960) show that by 1577 those fine residences had fallen into such 
disrepair as to have become virtually uninhabitable. Uriel's father had 
to rebuild the house, as transpires from Uriel's words in the Exemplar 
Humanae Vitae : "a handsome house situated in the best part of the city, 
that my father had built.” All six of Bento da Costa's children were 
raised in this house and five of them were born there. During an eight- 
month period in 1584-1585, when Bento da Costa Brandao was spen- 


Jacome was the first to be buried. He assumed (or was given after death) the name Jacob 
Aboab and his son, originally named Dinis Eanes after his (and Uriel's) grandfather, became 
Abraham Aboab. Revah conjectures that Abraham Aboab was the cousin (amitinus) who 
plays a role in Uriel's autobiography. 

4 Cf. Imanuel Aboab, Nomologia o Discursos legates, [Amsterdam] 1629, 300: 
A estas treynta familias mando el Rey acomodar en la ciudad de Oporto; y hizo que la 
ciudad diesse a cada una una casa, como dieron, muy comodas, en la calle de San Miguel; 
y en medio de todas ellas estava la sinagoga, que yo me acuerdo aver visto aun en mi nihez, 
sin estar derrocada. Teman dichas treynta casas une P. por armas, que mostravan el nombre 
de la ciudad. Pagavan de pension cinquenta reis, o maravedis, cada una a la ciudad, y 
ella les hazia empedrar la calle. Una destas treynta casas era la de mi abuelo, el senor 
Abraham Aboab, que el Senor perdone [...] ("These thirty families were put up by the 
king in the city of Oporto; he ordered the city to give each one a dwelling; as, in fact, 
was given, and very comfortable too, in Sao Miguel Street. Exactly in the middle was 
the synagogue, which I remember having seen intact during my childhood. Each facade 
bore a *P' as an escutcheon, representing the name of the city. Each paid the city a tax 
of fifty reals and the city had the street paved. One of those thirty houses belonged to 
my grandfather Abraham Aboab, may he rest in peace [. ..]”). Imanuel Aboab's grand¬ 
father was given the name Duarte Dias at the time of the General Conversion (1497). 
He was the son of Isaac Aboab II (Toledo, 1433 - Oporto, 1493), referred to by Joseph 
Caro as one of the greatest rabbinical scholars of his time. It was Isaac Aboab II who 
had negotiated with king John II the settlement of the thirty households at Oporto. 
Curiously there is no mention of any of Uriel's maternal forebears in the Aboab family 
history written by Isaac Matatia Aboab (1631-1707) (alias Dinis Eanes!), a great-great- 
grandson of Abraham Aboab (cf. I. S. Revah, "Pour l'histoire des nouveaux-chretiens 
portugais: la relation genealogique d'L de M. Aboab,” Boletim Intemacional de Bibliografia 
Luso-Brasileira, 2, 1961, 276-312). Isaac de Matatia Aboab does mention a collateral 
ancestor Isaac Naar expelled from Spain in 1492 who was baptized in adulthood at Tomar 
in 1497 and given the name Rodrigo Eanes. But if we conjecture that Rodrigo Eanes of 
Tomar was the father of Uriel's maternal great-grandfather Alvaro Rodrigues, then we 
must ask ourselves how a family living at Tomar at the time of the General Conversion 
came into the possession of the Aboab house in Oporto's rua de Sao Miguel and why 
Jacome Rodrigues took on the name Aboab rather than the name Naar. 



4 


INTRODUCTION 


ding most of his time back in Braga, his third son Miguel was born in 
that city, but he had him baptized in his parish church at Oporto. 5 

Bento and Branca da Costa had six children: Jacome (bom in 1580), 
Gabriel (Uriel, born c. 1583-1584), Miguel (born in 1585), Jeronimo (year 
of birth unknown), Joao (born c. 1592), Maria (or Faustina, born 1594). 
Bento was, like his father before him, a merchant and tax-farmer, 
though on a far larger scale. He bought and sold revenues belonging 
to ecclesiastical domains and orders of knighthood, treating them as 
negotiable merchandise. His business interests extended to Brazil, 
which he had visited before his marriage, as noted above. Judging by 
his recorded transactions he traded chiefly in port wine, cotton and 
Brazil sugar. 6 By 1601 he had acquired a nobiliary title: cavaleiro- 
fidalgo da Casa de El-Rei Nosso Senhor ("Knight-Nobleman of our Lord 
the King's Household”) which, from 1606 on, was replaced by cavaleiro- 
fidalgo da Casa da Infanta Dona Isabel ("Knight-Nobleman of the 
Household of the Infanta, Dona Isabel”). 7 

The earliest notarial record bearing Uriel's signature ("Guabriel 
Da Costa”) is dated February 19 1597, when he would have been about 
fourteen years old. 8 

On October 19 1600 Uriel registered at the Faculty of Canon Law 
of the University of Coimbra for courses in Institutes. He presented 
a certificate attesting to his having successfully passed the Latin 


5 On the run-down state of the houses in the rua de Sao Miguel, cf. Artur de 
Magalhaes Basto, "Novo documento inedito sobre Uriel da Costa," O Institute >, 79, 1930, 
442-454: 444-445. 

6 Bento da Costa Brandao, in partnership with two colleagues, chartered on 
August 29 1607 the caravel "Nossa Senhora do Rosario" to pick up cargo at Pernam¬ 
buco. On September 11 of that same year Bento guaranteed money and goods to be 
received in Brazil by his sons Miguel and Joao from one Antonio da Fonseca. Cf. "Livro 
de Notas de Joao de Azevedo, 1607-1608," ff. 11-13, Eduardo Maia Mendes Collection. 
Cited by Joao Manuel de Almeida Saraiva de Carvalho ("The Fellowship of St. Diogo, 
New Christian Judaisers in Coimbra in the Early 17th Century," Ph.D. diss., University 
of Leeds, 1990, 197). Joao da Costa Brandao was still in Brazil in 1611. Cf. I. S. Revah, 
Annuaire, 70, 1970, 576. 

7 Cf. A. de Magalhaes Basto, "Alguns documentos ineditos sobre Uriel da Costa," 
O Instituto, 79, 1930, 1-20: 20; id., "Nova contribuigao documental para a biografia de 
Uriel da Costa," O Instituto, 81, 1931, 425-463: 435-436, 451, 453, 458. Magalhas Basto 
points out that the Infanta D. Isabel, daughter of king Philip III, and her husband the 
Cardinal-Infante Archduke Albert of Austria reigned over the Southern Netherlands (now 
Belgium) from 1598 until the Archduke’s death in 1621, when the Southern Netherlands 
reverted to the Spanish crown. Isabel continued as Governor General until her death 
in 1633. 

8 Cf. I. S. Revah, Annuaire, 68, 1968, 569. 



INTRODUCTION 


5 


examination required of students who did not graduate from the secon¬ 
dary school attached to the University. 9 In his autobiography, Uriel 
tells us that he was educated by tutors at home. On February 19 1601, 
in the middle of the academic year, he dropped out, only returning to 
the University on November 7 1604, as a student of Canon Law. In the 
interim, Uriel was gainfully employed as secretary to the archbishopric 
of Coimbra. In 1985 the historian Gabriel Albiac chanced upon a two- 
page document in Uriel da Costa's own hand, dated October 8 1601, 
written and signed in that capacity. 10 

Between November 1 1604 and the end of February 1605 Uriel 
pursued his studies in Canon Law. Because he did not attend that year's 
full course, he needed special permission to re-register. One of those 
signing the permission certificate, dated May 7 1605, was Uriel's teacher 
Antonio Homem (1564-1624). This brilliant canonist was to go down in 
history as "the unlucky professor,” because his fame and success drove 
his colleagues to such envy that they did not rest until they brought 
about his imprisonment by the Inquisition on trumped-up charges, 
which led to his execution. 11 Further certificates show that Uriel 


9 Cf. id., art. cit., 570. 

10 Cf. British Library, Egerton 2,084, f. 520. Aside from his signatures, this is the 
only specimen of Uriel's handwriting which has so far come to light. It is described in 
the Catalogo dos manuscritos portugueses ou relativos a Portugal existentes no Museu 
Britanico by the Conde de Tovar (Lisbon, 1932): Carta original do cabido da Se de Coimbra 
para el-Rei. Dat° 8 de Outubro de 1601. Refere-se a actos de indisciplina cometidos em 
Roma por Alvaro Soares. The presence on the document of Gabriel da Costa's signature 
is mentioned. Cf. Gabriel Albiac, Uriel da Costa, Espejo de una vida, Madrid, 1985, 87-94. 
Cf. id., La sinagoga vacia, Madrid, 1987, 210-213. (See our reproduction and transcrip¬ 
tion of the document.) 

11 Homem was arrested by the Inquisition in 1619 on the charges of having created 
and led an "underground judaic cult” in honour of the Old Christian Friar Diogo de 
Assungao who was burnt alive, a martyr to "judaism,” at a Lisbon auto-da-fe on August 
3 1603. For good measure Homem was also accused of homosexual practices. Armed only 
with his juridical expertise, Homem heroically defended himself and steadfastly refused 
to save his life at the cost of his honour. He perished, garroted at the stake, a martyr 
to Catholicism, at the Lisbon auto-da-fe of May 5 1624, coincidentally at just about the 
time when, 2600 kilometers to the north, his former student Uriel da Costa was being 
arrested for denying in print the immortality of the soul. Antonio Homem's trial is (along 
with the later ones of Manuel Fernandes Vilareal and Antonio Jose da Silva) one of the 
most infamous examples of judicial murder in the annals of the Portuguese Inquisition. 
Cf. Antonio Jose Teixeira, Antonio Homem e a Inquisigao, Coimbra, 1895. The Ph.D. disser¬ 
tation by Joao Manuel de Almeida Saraiva de Carvalho (vide supra, n. 6), based on hitherto 
untapped archival material at Coimbra as well as 111 trials of the Coimbra and 20 of 
the Lisbon Inquisitions, unfortunately ignores the social, economic and political 
background of the Coimbra "witch hunt,” and assumes the truth not only of the charges, 



6 


INTRODUCTION 


attended courses from October 1605 until July 1606, from October 1606 
until May 1607 and from October 1607 until June 1608. 12 

Bento da Costa Brandao, Uriel's father, died on May 20 1608 and 
was buried in the parish of Nossa Senhora da Vitoria, at Oporto. Uriel 
abandoned his courses in Canon Law in June 1608 and returned home 
to Oporto. Shortly thereafter, his widowed mother found herself in 
financial difficulties. Money was owing to the family from a powerful 
nobleman, Dom Jorge de Mascarenhas, who was unable or unwilling 
to pay, even after being repeatedly ordered to do so by the courts. 
In desperation, she borrowed 319,000 reals from a certain Amador de 
Azevedo, not otherwise identified. 

In a document of August 1609, Uriel is referred to as "treasurer 
of the collegiate church of S. Martinho de Cedofeita.” This corroborates 
the statement in the Exemplar humanae vitae : 

[.. . ] when I was in my twenty-fifth year [. . . ] I obtained an ecclesiastical 
benefice, viz. the dignity of treasurer in the Collegiate Church. 

Like his maternal grandfather Dinis Eanes, Uriel took minor orders 
and received the tonsure, the first step in an ecclesiastical career. The 
position was extremely lucrative and prestigious, as Uriel tells us in 
his autobiography. An inventory taken in 1610 of his family's posses¬ 
sions (such inventories were mandatory under a royal decree of 1609), 
suggests that the da Costa's were comfortably off, though not wealthy. 

In November 1611 Uriel's eldest brother Jacome married his 
relative Violante da Costa and, that same month, Uriel gave up his 
ecclesiastical position. He was sent by his family to Lisbon to sue 
Dom Jorge de Mascarenhas. In February 1612, an agreement was 
reached between the da Costa family and the nobleman. The latter 
offered them the revenue of an estate near Oporto, called Sao Salvador 
de Vila Cova da Lixa, whose estimated annual value was about 880,000 
reals. On February 21 1612, the da Costa family signed a promissory 
note at Oporto to reimburse Dom Jorge the difference between this 


but of all Inquisitorial denunciations and confessional inculpations. An unprejudiced 
evaluation of the material dealt with by Saraiva de Carvalho is sorely needed. 

12 The documents concerning Uriel's academic career at Coimbra and his two 
signatures were discovered by Joaquim Mendes dos Remedios (cf. Os judeus portugueses 
em Amsterdam, Coimbra, 1911, 166-167). The documents were added to, explained and 
commented upon by Carolina Michaelis de Vasconcelos ("Uriel da Costa, Notas relativas 
a sua vida e as suas obras,” Revista da Universidade de Coimbra [hereafter "Uriel da 
Costa’’], 1922, 237-395: 244-252, 321-325). 



INTRODUCTION 


7 


amount and what he was owing them. Uriel brought back from Lisbon 
his fiancee, Francisca de Crasto, whom he married in his parish church 
on March 5 1612. On May 8 1612, Uriel's only sister, Maria da Costa, 
married her first cousin, Alvaro Gomes Bravo, in that same church. 
From June 1612 to June 1614, Uriel exercised the rights of revenue- 
collector which had been rented from Dom Jorge. Apparently the latter 
was paid the sum due to him. For farming the second year's revenues, 
800,000 reals remained outstanding to Dom Jorge. 

On March 20 1613, the family repaid their debt of 319,000 reals to 
Amador de Azevedo. In late February or early March 1614 Uriel da 
Costa, his mother, his wife, three of his brothers and one sister-in-law 
secretly embarked at Viana for Amsterdam. His sister Maria and her 
husband stayed behind at Oporto. 13 

A decree of March 13 1610 prohibited New Christians from leaving 
Portugal without royal authorization. It further stipulated that the 
property of anyone who left without such permisssion would be forfeit 
to the Crown, a premium being deducted therefrom to be paid out, 
where applicable, to the one who informed on the fugitives. The flight 
of the da Costa family was reported to the authorities by a certain 
Miguel Chamorro who claimed his premium in court. Dom Jorge, 
however, put in a counter-claim of preference, proving that 800.000 reals 
were owing to him by Uriel da Costa, who had mortgaged to him the 
real estate he owned at Oporto. The court found in Dom Jorge's favour 
and the title to the da Costa house in the rua de S. Miguel, with any 
contents, was transferred to him. In 1620 Dom Jorge sold the property 
for 300,000 reals. 14 

Uriel's sister Maria and her husband Alvaro Gomes Bravo were 
arrested by order of the District Governor of Oporto in 1621, being 
charged with aiding and abetting their family's illegal departure. The 
case was investigated by the Inquisition. Old Christian neighbours 
testified to the family's unimpeachable catholic orthodoxy; no denun- 


13 All the preceding is a synopsis of I. S. Revah, Annuaire, 70, 1970, 575-577. 
For the circumstances and date of the family's departure from Portugal, cf. also Artur 
de Magalhaes Basto, "Alguns documentos ineditos sobre Uriel da Costa,” O Institute), 
79, 1930, 1-20: 4, 17-18. 

14 Cf. A. de Magalhaes Basto, O Instituto, 79, 1930, 1-4, 12-16. For the significance 
of this price, cf. the comparisons drawn up by Magalhaes Basto of property sales in Oporto 
at this period (O Instituto, 79, 1930, 446-447). It is apparent from these figures that 300,000 
reals was a very substantial sum for a house. Uriel da Costa’s description in the Exemplar 
of his paternal home as "a handsome house situated in the best part of the city” is once 
more borne out. 



8 


INTRODUCTION 


ciation of any family member on the charge of "judaizing” was found 
on record for the period 1605-1614. The family's departure from 
Portugal was attributed exclusively to economic motives and Maria da 
Costa and her husband were released. 15 

The da Costa family arrived at Amsterdam before the end of April 
1615. In due course they all adopted judaism, assuming at the same 
time new first names, as was the custom. 16 While his younger 
brothers Miguel (Mordecai) and Joao (Joseph) remained in Amsterdam, 
Uriel, his older brother Jacome (Abraham), accompanied by their wives 
and their mother, left the Dutch capital for Hamburg in Northern 
Germany, there to establish a commercial outpost. 17 


15 Cf. I. S. Revah, Annuaire, loc. cit. 

16 There are no records documenting the presence at Amsterdam of any members 
of the da Costa family predating October 1617, but Leon Modena informs us that Uriel's 
theses were sent to him from Hamburg in 5376 (i.e., between the autumns of 1615 and 
1616) (cf. Carl Gebhardt, Die Schriften des Uriel da Costa’s [hereafter Schriften ], 
Amsterdam-Heidelberg, 1922,152-153). Hector Mendes Bravo's list, presented to the Lisbon 
Inquisition in December 1617, of all the Portuguese persons (119 all told) he knew to have 
adopted judaism in Amsterdam by the time of his departure a few months earlier, does 
not include any member of the da Costa family. Cf. A. M. Vaz Dias, Uriel Da Costa, Nieuwe 
Bijdrage tot diens Levensgeschiedenis (Mededelingen vanwege het Spinozahuis, 2) [hereafter 
Uriel Da Costa], Leiden, 1936, 11-12. Jacome da Costa Brandao (bom 1580) took on the 
name Abraham da Costa; Miguel da Costa Brandao (bom 1585), also known as Miguel 
Esteves de Pina, the name Mordecai da Costa or Mordecai Israel da Costa; Joao da Costa 
(bom c. 1592), also known as Joao Peres da Cunha, the name of Joseph da Costa or Joseph 
Israel da Costa. Cf. Isaac da Costa, Israel en de Volken, Utrecht, 1876,474; A. de Magalhaes 
Basto, "Nova contribui^ao documental para a biografia de Uriel da Costa,” O Instituto, 
81, 1931, 425-463: 446; I. S. Revah, Annuaire, 68, 1968, 568; "Notarial Records,” Studia 
Rosenthaliana, 24, 1, 1990, 68-77: 72. Uriel's brother Jeronimo da Costa (bom c. 1593) 
supposedly arrived from Brazil at Amsterdam (more likely Hamburg, for there is no 
mention of him in any Amsterdam documents) in 1617, taking on the name Aaron da Costa. 
Cf. Isaac da Costa, op. cit., loc. cit.) I. S. Revah, Annuaire, 67, 1967; 525. Unaware of Miguel 
da Costa's pseudonym Miguel Esteves de Pina and the identity between Miguel Esteves 
de Pina and Mordecai da Costa, Revah apparently confused Miguel and Jeronimo, 
attributing to the former the name Aaron and to the latter the name Mordecai (Annuaire, 
67, 1967, 519 and 523). Cf. Annuaire, 12, 1972, 661, where Revah seemingly confuses Joao 
and Jeronimo. Concerning the latter no further information has come to light. Uriel's 
brother Miguel da Costa Brandao (or Mordecai [Israel] da Costa) married at Amsterdam 
a daughter of Abraham Milano (originally Diogo de Pina, from Oporto). Children bom 
to them there between 1617 and 1624 died in infancy. Cf. D. Henriques de Castro, Keur 
van Grafstenen, Leiden, 1883, 22; Livro de Bet Haim do Kahal Kados de Bet Yahacob (publ. 
by Wilhelmina C. Pieterse), Assen, 1970, 102, 126. Uriel's brother Joao (Joseph) da Costa 
married Ribca Aboab Osorio at Amsterdam in 1617 (cf. Jaap Meijer, Isaac da Costa’s Weg 
naar het Christendom, Amsterdam, 1946, 193; Livro de Bet Haim, 184). 

17 A document dated Hamburg, 8 Nissan 5377 (April 13 1617) [hereafter "Aron 
Leoni Document”], concerns possible non-renewal of the contract permitting the 



INTRODUCTION 


9 


Three Portuguese jewish congregations, each with its own hakam, 
existed at Hamburg since around 1610: Talmud Tora, Keter Tora and 
Neve Salom. 18 It is not known which of the three synagogues Uriel 
and his family joined. Uriel's integration into the community was far 
from painless. Very soon after his arrival at Hamburg he was moved 
to catalogue what appeared to him the most glaring discrepancies 
between the Torah and the so-called Oral Law. 19 He sent this 
polemical broadside to the leaders of the "Ponentine” (i.e., Spanish- 
Portuguese) jewish congregation of Venice. The parnassim (= Lay 
Leaders) of that Venetian community appealed to the rabbi of the 
"German” community of Venice, the celebrated preacher and scholar 
Leon Modena, to act as defender of the faith and rebut Uriel's theses. 
Modena duly carried out his assignment. 20 . At the same time he 
advised the lay leaders of the Hamburg congregations that, unless the 


"Portuguese Nation” to reside and practise judaism there. The 39 signatories, all members 
of the Portuguese community, include Abraham Israel da Costa (Jacome), but, significantly, 
not Uriel. A copy of this document was found in the Archives of Reggio Emilia (Italy) 
by Dr. Aron Leoni of Milano, who intends to publish it, along with biographical profiles 
of the 39 signatories, in a forthcoming issue of the Revue des Etudes Juives. Abraham 
da Costa had a substantial account in the Bank of Hamburg in 1619. Cf. Hermann 
Kellenbenz, Sephardim an den Unteren Elbe (hereafter Sephardim), Wiesbaden, 1958, 
125, 255. Cf. Alfonso Cassuto, "Neue Funde zur altesten Geschichte der portugiesischen 
Juden in Hamburg,” Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland [hereafter 
"Neue Funde”], 2, 1,1931, 58-72: 71-72. Uriel's mother, Branca da Costa (nee Branca Dinis), 
who took on the name Sara da Costa, was living with her sons at Hamburg in 1622. 
Cf. "Notarial Records Relating to the Portuguese Jews in Amsterdam up to 1639” 
[hereafter "Notarial Records”], Studia Rosenthaliana, 24, 2, 1990, 221. 

18 Cf. Alfonso Cassuto, Gedenkschrift, Amsterdam, 1927, 7. 

19 According to orthodox jewish dogma, the Babylonian Talmud is the written 
version (c. 500) of a Tradition which goes back to a divine revelation, supposedly 
vouchsafed to Moses on Mount Sinai, simultaneously with the written Torah or Pentateuch 
and Scriptures, i.e., the whole Bible. Cf. B.T. Berakot 5a: "What is the meaning of the 
verse: 'And I will give thee the tablets of stone and the Law and the commandment which 
I have written that thou mayest teach them’ [Ex. 24, 12]? 'Tables of stone’: these are the 
Ten Commandments; 'the Law’: this is the Pentateuch; 'the commandment’: this is the 
Mishna; 'which I have written’: these are the Prophets and the Hagiographa; 'that thou 
mayest teach them’: this is the Gemara. It teaches us that all these things were given 
to Moses on Sinai.” 

20 We do not know in what language the refutation was originally composed. 
If composed in Hebrew, there would have been no difficulty having it translated into 
Portuguese. Other documents originating in Venice translated from Hebrew into 
Portuguese were sent to Amsterdam in 1618. Cf. H. P. Salomon, "La vraie excommunica¬ 
tion de Spinoza,” Forum Litterarum, Miscelanea de estudos literarios, linguisticos e 
historicos oferecida a J.J. van den Besselaar (ed. by H. Bots and M. Kerkhof) (hereafter 
"La vraie excommunication”), Amsterdam-Maarssen, 1984, 181-199. 



10 


INTRODUCTION 


heretic recant, he would find himself under the ban. 21 Uriel refused 
to yield. After receiving an urgent appeal from the lay leaders of the 
Hamburg communities, Modena, true to his threat, directed the 
Hamburg parnassim to excommunicate Uriel in person. In addition, 
between August 14,1618 and the end of that year, he staged a ceremony 
in the Ponentine synagogue of Venice, excommunicating Uriel in 
absentia . 22 

How accurate an idea can we attain of the contents of the theses 
which Uriel sent to Venice in 1616? His arch-opponent, Dr. Samuel da 
Silva (about whom more further on) writes in the prologue of his 1623 
treatise: 


[... ] he did not hesitate to draw up and distribute a declaration in which 
he denied the Tradition and the Oral Law given by God to Mose on 
Mount Sinai — the true explanations of the Written Law — saying that 
they are deceptions and frauds and that the Law has no need of such 
explanations and that he and others like him can give better ones. He 
asserted that the dinim by which Yisra'el was and is governed were 
all invented by ambitious and malicious men. He condemned the 
approved, traditional method of circumcision, made light of the manner 
of making and using tefillin and mezuza. He proclaimed it a great 
iniquity to celebrate a festival for two consecutive days, where the law 
only commanded one day of celebration. He did not accept the 
legitimate reason given for this by the prophets and the holy men who 
lived at the time of the First and Second Temples [. . .] 


21 Cf. Gebhardt, Schriften, 150152. 

22 H. P. Salomon ("La vraie excommunication”) shows that the lugubrious 
ceremony, described in great detail by Modena himself in his "Relatione de tutti riti, 
costumi e vita degl’Hebrei” (1637) (Cod. Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Santo Ufficio, 
b. 94), took place in the Spanish-Portuguese synagogue of Venice, and that the text of 
da Costa's excommunication was again used 38 years later at Amsterdam by hakam Saul 
Levi Mortera and his colleagues to ban Spinoza. It is quite likely that Mortera, who 
happened to be on an official mission to Venice during the latter part of 1618, actually 
witnessed the ceremony. According to Cassuto ("Contribui^ao para a historia dos judeus 
portugueses em Hamburgo,” Biblos, 1933, 657-670: 662), a book entitled Tratado do herem 
(Amsterdam? n.d.), which we have been unable to locate, concerns Uriel da Costa's excom¬ 
munication. Kayserling (Biblioteca Espanola-Portugueza-Judaica, Strasbourg, 1890, 36; 
cf. Johann Moller, Cimbria Literata, 2, Copenhagen, 1744, s.v. "Rodericus a CASTRO,” 
135-137:137) attributes the Tratado do herem (or Tratado de halissa ?) to Rodrigo de Castro 
(alias David Nahmias: Lisbon 1550 - Hamburg 1629), who was excommunicated in 1614, 
despite Leon Modena's reservations, for refusing to give his sister-in-law halisa (cf. Dt. 
25, 9). Rodrigo denounced the jewish communal authorities to the Hamburg Senate for 
usurping its authority, whereupon (in 1618) Modena supported the herem. Cf. Jacob 
Heilpron (Nahalat Ya c aqob, Padua, 1623, 11-12), cited by Howard Ernest Adelman, 
"Success and Failure in the 17th-century Ghetto of Venice: The Life and Thought of Leon 
Modena, 1571-1648,” Brandeis University Ph.D. diss., 1985, 528-536. 



INTRODUCTION 


11 


In 1856 Abraham Geiger published for the first time a treatise by 
Leon Modena entitled magen ve-sina (= "Shield and Buckler”: cf. Ps. 
35, 2; Ezek. 39, 9; Jer. 46, 3), detailing objections to Tradition by "a 
certain heretic from Hamburg” as well as Modena's own answers. 23 
We are in a position to demonstrate that the Hamburg heretic of magen 
ve-sina was Uriel da Costa, and that Modena's treatise contains Uriel's 
original objections, a number of the latter being encased by the 
formulae "the following are his words” and "up to here are his words.” 
Previous attempts at identifying the Hamburg heretic with Uriel da 
Costa have met with scepticism in some quarters. Geiger himself 
thought the heretic of magen ve-sina to be a rhetorical foil made up 
by Modena. Bereft of any authenticated sample of da Costa's writings 
on rabbinic tradition, it was possible for Geiger to consider the magen 
ve-sina a dialogue in the Renaissance colloquium tradition (cf. Erasmus, 
Castiglione, etc.). Even phrases such as "up to here his words” were 
no doubt explained away by Geiger as part of Modena's technique of 
persuasion. As recently as 1983, Jean-Pierre Osier rejected the identity 
of the Hamburg heretic with Uriel da Costa. Unlike Geiger, Osier 


23 Abraham Geiger, Leon da Modena, Rabbiner zu Venedig (1571-1648), Seine 
Stellung zur Kabbalah, zum Thalmud und zum Christenthume, Breslau, 1856. Geiger 
provided only the Hebrew text of magen ve-sina from Ms. Bodleian 2786. An abridged 
Portuguese version of the heretic's objections is extant in the hand of hakam Mose Refael 
de Aguilar (d. 1679). This, however, is not a transcription of Uriel da Costa's original 
text (as some scholars once believed), but part of de Aguilar's Portuguese translation 
(Ms. Ets Haim/ Montezinos 48A11 [Fuks nos. 176 and 423], dated 1639) of Modena's magen 
ve-sina. It is not known from what manuscript Aguilar made his translation. Geiger's 
text was translated into French by Jean-Pierre Osier. Cf. Leon de Modene, Le Bouclier 
et la Targe (traduction et presentation par J.-P. Osier), Paris, 1980; reprinted in J.-P. Osier, 
DVriel da Costa a Spinoza, Paris, 1983, 219-296. A Venetian rabbi, Isaac Pacifico (d. 1746) 
made a Hebrew translation entitled ' iggeret tesubat ha-minim (Jewish Theological 
Seminary of America, Ms. 2260) from what he called a la c az version. If la c az is to be inter¬ 
preted in this case as Italian, a version in that language must at one time have existed. 
On magen ve-sina, see further Ludwig Blau, "Leos Stellung zum Talmud” in Kitbe 
Ha-rab Yehuda Arye Mi-Modena, Budapest, 1905, 85-96; Nathan Porges, "Leon Modena 
liber Uriel da Costa,” Zeitschrift fur Hebraische Bibliographie, 1911, 15, 80-82; id., 
"Zur Lebensgeschichte Uriel da Costas,” Monatschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenchaft 
des Judenthums, 62, 1918, 37-48: 45-48; 108-124: 108-115; C. Gebhardt, Schriften, 1922, 
3-32, 150-157; Carolina Michaelis de Vasconcelos, "Uriel da Costa, Notas suplementares 
relativas a sua vida e sua obra,” Lusitania: Revista de estudos portugueses, 1,1, 1924, 
5-22: 12-15; Nathan Porges, "Gebhardt's Book on Uriel da Costa,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 
19, 1, 1928, 37-74: 44-45; Isaiah Sonne, "Da Costa Studies,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 22, 
1931-32,247-293:287-293; H. P. Salomon, "A Copy of Uriel da Costa's 'Exame das tradigoes 
phariseas' located in the Royal Library of Copenhagen” [hereafter "A Copy”], Studia Rosen- 
thaliana, 24, 2, 1990, 153-168: 160. 



12 


INTRODUCTION 


conceded, rightly, as it turns out, that the heretic must be a real, not 
a fictional character, but, mistakenly believing that Uriel da Costa never 
lived in Hamburg, Osier concluded that he did not fit the bill. 24 In the 
absence of any da Costa writings on Tradition, Osier, like Geiger, failed 
to recognize the voice of Uriel in magen ve-sina. The issue may now be 
settled by a careful comparison of Uriel's exhumed Exame, with its 
detailed exposition of his views on Tradition, and the citations of 
Modena's "heretic” in magen ve-sina. By the same token we now know 
that the latter text contains in substance — if not in detail — Uriel da 
Costa's thought as expressed in 1616. Moreover, as will be seen, in his 
Exame da Costa refers more than once to specific responses made by 
an unnamed interlocutor whom we shall discover to be none other than 
Leon Modena. 

Returning to the vicissitudes of Uriel da Costa's life, it is apparent 
from documentation at our disposal that subsequent to, and in spite 
of, his excommunication at Hamburg in 1618 he did not leave the 
city earlier than the spring of 1623. 25 In addition to his intensive 


24 Cf. J.-P. Osier, DVriel da Costa a Spinoza, Paris, 1983, 138, 190, 251. 

25 Cf. A. M. Vaz Dias, Uriel Da Costa, 1936, 14-17. A document dated February 21 
1623 (cf. "Notarial Records,” Studia Rosenthaliana, 23, 2, 1989, 203, doc. 2819) refers 
to a power of attorney granted by Uriel da Costa before a notary in Hamburg to his brother 
Miguel (Mordecai) of Amsterdam, no doubt in connection with his imminent departure. 
Cf. "Notarial Records,” ibid., 24, 1, 1990, 72, Document 2871 (dated May 15 1623) and 
commentary; ibid 24, 1, 1990, 73, Document 2876 (also dated May 15 1623). This was the 
very day when the elders of the jewish community, meeting to discuss Uriel's arrival 
at Amsterdam and his heretical opinions, took the decision to confirm his excommunica¬ 
tion ( vide infra, n. 32). Documents 2871 and 2876 refer to transferral by Miguel to a 
representative in Rotterdam of the merchandise originally consigned to Uriel da Costa 
in Hamburg. Document 2905, dated June 10 1623 (cf. ibid., 24, 2, 1990, 216-217), refers 
to Miguel's authorizing a representative in Middelburg to claim sums owing to Uriel da 
Costa of Hamburg. Cf. ibid., 24, 2, 1990, 221, Document 2926 (dated June 28, 1623): at 
the beginning of February 1623, Uriel's brother Joao (Joseph) and his wife were plan¬ 
ning to visit their mother and brothers in Hamburg during the coming summer. Docu¬ 
ment 2935, dated July 6 1623 (cf. ibid., 24, 2, 1990, 223) refers inter alia to Miguel's 
authorizing a representative in La Rochelle to claim 30 cases of sugar shipped from Viana 
do Castelo to Uriel da Costa of Hamburg. In these documents Uriel da Costa is designated 
only by his alias "Adam Romes (or Romez).” On May 31 1624, upon his release from 
custody, the "Book of Justice” of the Amsterdam Municipal Authorities enters him as 
"Uriel da Costa, alias Adam Romez.” On March 7 1627, Uriel da Costa declared under 
oath at the City Hall of Utrecht that while he was a resident of Hamburg "he traded with 
Portugal under the name Adam Romez in order to avoid confiscation of his merchandise 
there.” Cf. A. M. Vaz Dias, Uriel Da Costa, 1936, 15, 17. Perhaps Uriel had in mind the 
money he still owed Dom Jorge de Mascarenhas upon his emigration (cf. supra). The 
surname "Romes” was not only borne by Uriel da Costa. Diogo de Lima in his Inquisitorial 



INTRODUCTION 


13 


commercial activities 26 , he was busy writing a book which grew out 
of the broadside he had sent to Venice in 1616. He was planning to 
publish this book, when a physician who was a prominent warden of 
the Portuguese-jewish colony of Hamburg, Dr. Samuel da Silva, pre¬ 
empted him. 

Samuel (or Semuel) da Silva (1570/1571-1631) may have been, like 
Uriel, a native of Oporto and a graduate of the University of 
Coimbra. 27 He had left Portugal some years earlier than Uriel and 
resided continuously at Hamburg from, at the latest, 1616. 28 Already 


deposition of 1644 listing Portuguese jews he had known at Hamburg in the late 1620's, 
mentions a Miguel Romes from Oporto who adopted the "jewish” name Isaac Romes. 
The latter's sister is identified as the wife of Francisco Bravo (the Bravo family was related 
to Uriel's mother) and his wife as the sister of Duarte Esteves de Pina "whose jewish 
name is Isaac Milano.” (Cf. Pedro de Azevedo, "O Bocarro Frances e os judeus de Cochim 
e Hamburgo,” Archivo Historico Portuguez, 8, 1910, 185-198: 194-195.) It will be recalled 
that Uriel's brother Miguel (Mordecai), also known as Miguel Esteves de Pina, was married 
to a daughter of Diogo de Pina from Oporto whose jewish name was Abraham Milano. 
Miguel Romes is mentioned as being worth 22,000 marks in October 1638 (cf. Hamburg 
Archives, "Zollbuch 1627/1650”). (I am beholden for this last reference to the late Alfonso 
Cassuto of Hamburg and Lisbon.) 

26 From the above-cited notarial records it appears that Uriel traded mainly in 
sugar between Brazil, Portugal (Viana do Castelo and Oporto), Amsterdam and Hamburg. 

27 The dates of Samuel da Silva's birth and death (January 2 1631, aged 60) are 
known from his epitaph in the Altona cemetery of the Hamburg Portuguese jewish 
community. Cf. J. S. da Silva Rosa, "Uriel da Costa en Dr. Samuel da Silva (1571-1631),” 
De Vrijdagavond, 4, 31, October 28 1927, 487-488 (da Silva Rosa's article includes the 
Hebrew epitaph and a Dutch translation of same). The unconfirmed suggestion that he 
was born at Oporto was put forward by C. Gebhardt (Schriften, 1922, 256). Dr. da Silva's 
and his wife Rebecca's daughter, Sara, born in 1612, married Dr. Benjamin Mussafia 
(1606-1675) at Hamburg in 1628 and died there of the smallpox in 1634. She gave birth 
to three sons all of whom died in infancy. Cf. the introduction to Mussafia's philological 
essay, dedicated to his wife’s memory, entitled zeker rab, which he had printed at 
Amsterdam by Menasse Ben Israel in 1635. Cf. S. Seeligmann, Bibliographic en Histone, 
1927,48. Mussafia, celebrated physician, physicist and Hebrew philologist, later moved 
to Amsterdam, where he played an active role in the Portuguese jewish community, 
leaving 10,000 guilders to its Ets Haim Seminary. For his Brazil-trade at Hamburg, 
cf. H. Kellenbenz, Sephardim, 331-338; for his legacy, cf. Wilhelmina C. Pieterse, Daniel 
Levi de Barrios als Geschiedschrijver van de Portugees-Israelietische Gemeente te 
Amsterdam in zijn 'Triumpho del Goviemo Popular' (hereafter Barrios), Amsterdam, 1968, 
88 , 107. 

28 Dr. Semuel da Silva is described as a resident of Hamburg on an Amsterdam 
document of May 20 1616 which he signed by proxy. Cf. Sigmund Seeligmann, 
Bibliographie en Historic, Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis derEerste Sephardim in Amsterdam 
[hereafter Bibliographie en Histone], Amsterdam, 1927, 47-48; in April 1617, his also 
appears as one of 39 signatures on the "Aron Leoni Document” (vide supra, n. 17). 



14 


INTRODUCTION 


in 1613 he had published a literal Spanish translation of Maimonides’ 
"Treatise on Repentance,” providing spiritual guidance for returnees 
to the fold. 29 

In 1623 Dr. da Silva published in Amsterdam, at the press of Paulus 
Aertsen van Ravesteyn, 30 a book in Portuguese entitled Tratado da 
Immortalidade da Alma ("Treatise Concerning the Immortality of 
the Soul”). 31 It is an intemperate refutation of da Costa’s denial of 
the soul's immortality. The book contains three consecutive chapters 
— numbered 23-24-25 — of the then still unpublished treatise on which 
Uriel da Costa had been working at Hamburg. These three chapters are 
a scripturally and rationally based attack on the doctrine of the soul’s 
immortality. Da Silva divided Uriel’s chapters into consecutive 
fragments of manageable length, interspersing them in 21 of his own 
chapters: da Costa's pieces in small italics, followed by his own refuta¬ 
tion. Dr. da Silva tells us at the outset of his eighth chapter that he 


29 Cf. S. Seeligmann, op. cit., 46-47. No actual copy of this work was known to 
S. Seeligmann or to J. S. da Silva Rosa in 1927. Two copies were recently discovered 
in the Biblioteca Nacional of Madrid by Dr. Harm den Boer. One copy has a printed title- 
page, dated "Francafort, Ano 3573 [sic]”; the other title-page, manuscript, is dated 
"Amsterdam, Ano 5373.” They are described by A. K. Offenberg, "Exame das tradigoes,” 
in Exodo, Portugezen in Amsterdam, 1600-1680 (edited by Renee Kistemaker and Tirtsah 
Levie) [hereafter "Exame”],” 1987, 59 and more rigorously by den Boer in his Bibliografta 
de las ediciones literarias en lengua espahola y portuguesa de los se far dies de Amsterdam, 
c. 1600-1809 (Apendix II of his La literatura hispano-portuguesa, University of Amsterdam 
diss., 1992). Whether in 1613 Dr. da Silva possessed the wherewithal to carry out the 
translation unaided is, of course, a moot point. The title-pages, in any case, are written 
in a strange mixture of Spanish and Portuguese. 

30 Harm den Boer has shown ("Was Uriel da Costa's Examen seized by the Spanish 
Inquisition?” Studia Rosenthaliana, 23, 1, 1989, 3-7: 4-5) that a Sephardic prayer-book 
in Spanish was printed at Amsterdam by Paul van Ravesteyn in February 1622, displaying 
that city's name on its title-page, the first jewish book printed there to do so. The second 
and third were da Silva's treatise on immortality and da Costa's reply. Cf. id., La literatura 
hispanoportuguesa de los sefardies de Amsterdam en su contexto historico-social (siglos 
XVII y XVIII) (doctoral diss. University of Amsterdam 1992) (hereafter La literatura 
hispano-portuguesa), 379-384. Cf. also Adri K. Offenberg, "Exame,” 1987, 56-63. In 1637, 
at Leyden, Paulus Aertsz van Ravensteyn [sic] printed the first edition of the celebrated 
Statenbijbel (States Bible). 

31 Of Dr. da Silva's book nine surviving copies are known today: 1) Bibliotheca 
Rosenthaliana (University Library of Amsterdam) 2) Bibiotheca Ets Haim / Livraria 
Montezinos (Portuguese jewish community of Amsterdam) 3) British Library 4) Hamburg 
State and University Library 5) Bibliotheca Palatina (Parma) 6) Jewish Theological 
Seminary of America (New York) 7) Bibliotheca Vaticana (Rome) 8) Royal Library 
(Copenhagen) 9) Biblioteca Nacional (Madrid). The entire book was "reprinted” at Lisbon 
in 1982 by Jesue Pinharanda Gomes, whose aberrant "modern” spelling, idiosyncratic 
punctuation and many errors in transcription often render the text meaningless. 



INTRODUCTION 


15 


managed to obtain a "quire” (Portuguese: cademo) containing chapters 
23 through 25 of da Costa’s work: 

We got wind of a book that the adversary — the one who forces us to 
write — was trying to have printed. We were very eager to see it and 
actually managed to obtain a single quire which we can faithfully attest 
to be in his own hand (que testemunhamos fielmente serescrito de sua 
propria mao.) 

In the three chapters of his work which da Silva reproduces, da 
Costa argues that the doctrine of the soul's immortality is foreign to 
the Law of Moses and that this doctrine was introduced into judaism 
by the Pharisees. Da Silva — who naturally disputes both claims — 
faults da Costa for his lack of any serious grounding in either Scrip¬ 
ture or the Oral Law, or even familiarity with the Hebrew and Aramaic 
languages. 

It is not known whether da Silva travelled from Hamburg to 
Amsterdam for the publication of his book in 1623. About da Costa's 
presence in Amsterdam in early May of 1623 there can be no doubt. 
In the minutes of the Amsterdam Portuguese community it is recorded 
that on May 15 1623 the delegates of the three jewish congregations 
convened to discuss certain scandalous events. One of them was the 
recent arrival at Amsterdam of Uriel da Costa, under the alias Uriel 
Abadat, professing the very heresies which had earned him excom¬ 
munication at Venice and Hamburg. The minutes of the May 15 meeting, 
using language — emphasised in the excerpt that follows — reminis¬ 
cent of Portuguese Inquisitorial trial-records, further report that: 

[. . . ] the hakamim, in the presence of delegates from the three Boards 
of Elders, held meetings with Uriel in the course of which mild and 
gentle persuasion was applied to bring him back to the truth. Seeing 
that through pure obduracy and arrogance he persists in his wickedness 
and wrong opinions, the delegates from the three boards of elders, 
together with the boards of wardens and the consent of the hakamim 
ordained he be excluded as a person already excommunicated and 
accursed of God, and that [. . .] no communication with him is 
henceforth permitted to anyone except his brothers, who are granted 
eight days to wind up their affairs with him. 32 


32 Municipal Archives of Amsterdam, Portuguese Archive, 13, ff. 25-26. This docu¬ 
ment was transcribed and published by Joaquim Mendes dos Remedios (Os judeus 
portugueses em Amsterdam, Coimbra, 1911, 160-161); more correctly, along with a German 
translation, by C. Gebhardt (Schriften, 1922, 181-183); analysed by A. M. Vaz Dias, Uriel 
Da Costa, 1936, 14. The alias Uriel Abadat which, according to the document, da Costa 



16 


INTRODUCTION 


Excommunication did not deter Uriel da Costa from going ahead 
with his "Examination of Pharisaic Traditions Compared with the 
Written Law.” He had it printed during the spring of 1624 at the press 
of Paul van Ravesteyn, the same that had printed da Silva's book the 
previous year. Da Costa's book had meanwhile taken on a bipartite 
form. The first part, consisting of 14 brief separately numbered 
chapters, was a revised version of Uriel's objections to the Oral Law 
which he had sent eight years earlier to Venice. A close comparison 
between these two stages of da Costa's thought reveals changes of 
both sequence and content, as will be pointed out in part 2 of this 
Introduction. 33 

The second and longest part of Uriel's book is a counter-reply to 
Dr. da Silva's refutation of his (Uriel's) three chapters on the immor¬ 
tality of the soul, which, as we have seen, had already been published 
by Dr. da Silva. Those three chapters — numbered 23, 24 and 25 in 
Uriel's book as originally conceived — are now printed as chapters 1, 
2 and 3 of the second part of Uriel's definitive book. They occupy pages 
56 through 97, thus making up almost one-fifth of the 214-page volume. 
It should be noted that while the text is essentially the same in both 
da Silva and da Costa's books there are many minor and a couple of 
major variants between the two publications, aside from a distinct 
orthography. (These discrepancies and the problems to which they 
gave rise in editing and translating the two books will also be treated 


had adopted upon his arrival in Amsterdam has never been satisfactorily explained nor 
does it occur in any other extant document. The hakamim who counseled da Costa in 
1623 are not named in the document. Hakam Saul Levi Mortera (1596-1660) of the Bet 
Ycfaqob congregation, the only spiritual leader in Amsterdam officially holding that title 
in 1623, must have been one of their number. David Pardo (P-1657), leader of the Bet Yisra’el 
congregation, was at that time no more than hazan (precentor) and Samuel Cohen (P-1625), 
leader of the Neve Salom congregation, had not as yet been promoted beyond the title 
of rubi (= junior rabbi). In 1623, neither Menasseh Ben Israel (1604-1657) nor Isaac Aboab 
da Fonseca (1605-1693), both in the employ of the Neve Salom congregation, held the title 
of hakam . Cf. Joseph d'Ancona, "De Portugese Gemeenten te Amsterdam tot de Vereniging 
(1639),” in H. Brugmans and A. Frank, Geschiedenis derjoden in Nederland, Amsterdam, 
1940, 201-269: 254-256. 

33 Cf. H. P. Salomon, "A Copy of Uriel da Costa's 'Exame das Tradi^oes phariseas' 
located in the Royal Library of Copenhagen,” Studia Rosenthaliana, 24, 2, 1990, 153-165: 
158-159; id., "Uriel da Costa e as filacterias,” Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Univer- 
sidade de Lisboa (Homenagem a Jose Vitorino de Pina Martins) (in press). That Uriel’s 
book came from the press during the spring of 1624 may be deduced as follows: he states 
at the end of Chapter 19 that "this year 5384 the new moon appeared on March 19 [. . .] 
and the month began to be counted on the 21st.” Since he was arrested because of his 
book on May 21 or 23, it must have been printed between March 21st and May 21st 1624. 



INTRODUCTION 


17 


further on in this Introduction.) Chapters 4 through 20 of the second 
part of Uriel's book are the counter-reply proper to Dr. da Silva's refuta¬ 
tion of the first three chapters. Only Uriel's final, unnumbered chapter 
deals with a question not addressed by Dr. da Silva: the perpetuity 
of the world. 

Events took a dramatic turn as soon as the book came off the press. 
As the Exemplar narrates: 

No sooner had [my book] appeared in print than the senators and rulers 
of the jews agreed to lay an information against me before the public 
magistrate, setting forth that I had published a book to disprove the 
immortality of the soul, and that with a view to subvert not only the 
jewish, but also the Christian religion. Upon this information I was 
apprehended and sent to prison, whence, after a confinement of eight 
or ten days, I was discharged upon giving security. For I was fined by 
the magistrate in the penalty of three hundred florins, beside the 
forfeiture of my books lately published. 


On May 31 1624, his brothers Miguel (Mordecai) and Joao (Joseph) 
bailed him out on a security of 1200 guilders. 34 The entire run of the 
book was condemned to public burning, but, as we now know, at least 
two copies escaped the flames. 35 It is not completely clear who took 


34 In the Exemplar Humanae Vitae, da Costa claimed to have been fined 300 
guilders and to have suffered the confiscation of his book. A. M. Vaz Dias (Uriel Da Costa, 
1936, 17-19) compared Uriel’s account with a document dated May 31 1624 from the 
Amsterdam Municipal Archives (AJ 5061, 572, f. 107, also reproduced by Gebhardt, 
Schriften, 184, along with a German translation). This document tells of Uriel's release 
from prison and of the bail paid by his brothers, but it does not mention the fine or the 
confiscation. The "Books of Sentences” for the period November 28 1624 - February 5 
1627 are missing. Vaz Dias doubts, however, whether these contained an entry pertaining 
to the fine and the confiscation of Uriel's book, because such a sentence would have been 
imposed hard upon Uriel’s release and certainly not more than six months later. 

35 A copy came into the hands of the Spanish Grand Inquisitor and was accurately 
described in the "Index of Prohibited Books” which appeared at Madrid in 1632. 
Cf. I. S. Revah, Annuaire de UEcole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, 1964, 267-268; cf. H. den 
Boer, Studia Rosenthaliana, 23, 1, 1989, 3-7. A copy was auctioned at The Hague in 1728 
(from the library of hakam David Nunes Torres), in one lot with Dr. da Silva's Treatise, 
and described in the printed auction catalogue. Cf. S. Seeligmann, Bibliographie en 
Historie, 1927, 54-55. The copy located in 1990 at the Danish Royal Library may be the 
one sold at The Hague in 1728. It could have been acquired there by the famous Danish 
bibliophile Otto Thott (1703-1785), a part of whose immense collection ended up at the 
Royal Library. We have so far not found a listing for either Uriel's or Dr. da Silva’s book 
in the published 11-volume auction catalogue of the Thott Collection (Copenhagen, 
1786-1792). 



18 


INTRODUCTION 


the initiative for lighting the pyre: the Amsterdam municipal authorities 
or —more probably— the Portuguese-jewish ones. 36 Between 1624 
and 1628 the latter wrote to Rabbi Jacob Ha-Levi of Venice that "the 
heads of the community together with the government authorities 
confiscated all the copies of his book and burnt them in public.” They 
deplore the fact that due to the absence of an Inquisition in the 
Netherlands they were unable to have Uriel condemned to death, but 
they report with satisfaction that they did succeed in effecting his 
banishment from Amsterdam. They furthermore state that whereas 
Uriel's two brothers in Amsterdam broke off all relations with him, his 
elderly mother accompanied him into exile and, by sharing his roof, 
chose to share his excommunication. R. Ha-Levi's correspondents bring 
to his attention that: 

[. . . ] she shares the meat of animals slaughtered by her son and 
conforms to his heretical calendar-calculations, thus eating on the 
actual Day of Atonement and fasting on a spurious Day of Atonement 
invented by her son; eating leaven on the actual Passover and 
unleavened bread on his spurious Passover; working on the real 
festivals and abstaining from work on his spurious festivals [. . .] 

Their question to Rabbi Ha-Levi, which was the object of their letter 
to him, was how to proceed were Uriel's mother to die, as seemed likely, 
in a state of excommunication. Should she be denied burial altogether 
and "left lying on the face of the earth” or, out of consideration for the 
honour of her pious sons, nevertheless be granted burial among 
Israelites? In his reply the rabbi left open the latter possibility. 37 

On March 7 1627 Uriel declared on oath at the City Hall of Utrecht, 
inter alia, that he was a permanent resident of that city. 38 On October 


36 There is a later instance of a book-burning carried out in the Amsterdam 
community during Mortera's term of office, namely Changas del Ingenio by Manuel de 
Pina, consigned to the flames in 1656, not only at Amsterdam but also at Hamburg. 
Cf. Saul Levi Mortera, Tratado da verdade da lei de Moises, Coimbra, 1988, Introduc¬ 
tion, 101-102. 

37 Cf. se’elot ufsubot r. ya c aqob lebet halevi, Venice, 1632, number 49. Cf. Joseph 
Perles, "Eine neuerschlossene Quelle liber Uriel da Costa,” Monatschrift fur die Geschichte 
des Judenthums, 26, 1877, 193-213. Perles provides the Hebrew text and a thumb-nail 
biography of Jacob Ha-Levi who was born in Patras (Greece). Gebhardt (Schriften, 1922, 
185-187) reproduces and translates into German only part of the text; Carolina Michaelis 
de Vasconcelos ("Uriel da Costa,” 325-328) supplies a complete Portuguese translation 
by Jose Benoliel. 

38 Utrecht had no jewish community until the late 18th century. Cf. A. M. Vaz Dias, 
Uriel da Costa, 1936, 15, 19; Jacob Zwarts, "Joodse Archiefsprokkels: Uriel da Costa in 
Utrechtse ballingschap (1627),” De Vrijdagavond, 8, April 24, 1931, 61-64. 



INTRODUCTION 


19 


4 1628 Sara da Costa was buried in the tenth grave of the tenth row 
at the Portuguese jewish cemetery of Ouderkerk, near Amsterdam. 39 
It may be surmised that, after four years of living in Utrecht, Uriel 
returned to Amsterdam for his mother's funeral, which provided an 
opportunity, perhaps at his brothers' behest, to bring about a recon¬ 
ciliation with the Portuguese jewish community. Since he had never 
been officially excommunicated at Amsterdam, the document of May 
15 1623 merely confirming the Hamburg and Venice excommunications, 
no formal readmission ceremony would have been necessary, but only 
an oral retraction of his "errors” before the bet din (tribunal of three 
hakamim). In 1629 he was a dues-paying member of the Honen Dalim 
(confraternity for the extending of interest-free loans). 40 By 1631 he 
held an account in the Amsterdam "Wisselbank” under the name 
"Adam Romez,” so presumably he was still engaged in trade with 
Portugal. 41 In 1632 or 1633, if the Exemplar is to be believed, the 
Amsterdam authorities re-endorsed the Hamburg and Venice bans. 
At some point after his return to Amsterdam, Uriel's wife, Francisca 
de Crasto, died. 42 

By a deed dated June 6 1639, Uriel da Costa, residing at Amsterdam 
in the Vloonburgsteeg, an alley, now called Houtkopersdwarsstraat, in 
the immediate vicinity of the Portuguese synagogue which had been 
rebuilt and consecrated that same year, transferred all his worldly 
belongings to his "maid”, and presumably common-law wife, Digna da 


39 Cf. Livro de Bet Haim do Kahal Kados de Bet Yahacob (ed. by Wilhelmina 
C. Pieterse), Assen, 1970, 140: Sara da Costa, may de Abraham e Josep da Costa em 4 de 
Outubro. Significantly, Uriel is not mentioned among her sons. 

40 Cf. Isaac da Costa, Israel en de Volken, Utrecht, 1876, 473-474; Gebhardt 
(Schriften, 1922, 157, 273) mistakenly dates Uriel's membership to "before 1623,” a 
manifest impossibility. Cf. A. M. Vaz Dias, Uriel Da Costa, 1936, 20. Jacob (Jaap) Meijer 
(Encyclopaedia Sefardica Neerlandica, Amsterdam, 1949, s.v. "Da Costa, Uriel,” 161-174: 
164,168) identified the confraternity as Honen Dalim, while erroneously crediting Isaac 
da Costa with this identification. On the origin and purpose of the Honen Dalim confrater¬ 
nity, cf. Wilhelmina C. Pieterse, Barrios, 106. 

41 Cf. A. M. Vaz Dias, Uriel Da Costa, 1936, 19-20. 

42 She presumably shared Uriel's exile at Utrecht. No information about her life 
is presently available. Ms. Odette Vlessing, Keeper of the Portuguese Archive at the 
Municipal Archives of Amsterdam, suggests that an undated tombstone at Ouderkerk 
marked simply "S[epultur]a de Rachel da Costa” may be that of Uriel’s wife. According 
to David Henriques de Castro's manuscript register (334, 1329, carton 26, no. 46), the 
grave is located between that of a person who died on October 14 1630 and that of a person 
who died on November 8 1630. 



20 


INTRODUCTION 


Costa. 43 The document bears the signature "Adam Romes” in Uriel's 
hand as well as the signatures of two witnesses, one a neighbourhood 
tobacconist, Daniel Cuyper, a Christian, and the other a manufacturer 
of 'Talking statues with moveable heads, necks and eyes” for fairs and 
circuses, Jan Ellegoot, also known as Jacob Ellegoot Osorio, apparently 
the son of a Dutch father and a Portuguese mother. 44 

On April 3 1639 the three worship communities of Amsterdam Bet 
Ya c aqob, Neve Salom and Bet Israel fused to form the united con¬ 
gregation Talmud Tora under the spiritual leadership of the hakamim 
Saul Levi Mortera, David Pardo, Menasseh ben Israel and Isaac Aboab. 
On the jewish New Year of 1639 the rebuilt and refurbished synagogue 
of the former Bet Israel community on the Houtgracht was inaugurated 
as the sole synagogue. 45 

Later that year a macabre ceremony took place in the new 
synagogue. The event is explained and described as follows in the "Book 
of Sentences of the Nation from the Time of the Union of the Three Holy 
Congregations in 1639 until 1680”: 

Wording of the sentence that was read from the teva concerning 
Abraham Mendes ("the Marriage Fiend”) 

On 16 Hesvan 5400 [November 13 1639], the Gentlemen of the 
Mahamad being present, there appeared before them Abraham Mendes, 
who has until now been separated from the Nation, under a ban of 
excommunication. He begged from the bottom of his heart, showing 
signs of contrition, to be readmitted into the jewish fold, protesting 
that he was ready to carry out any penance. Consequently the 
Gentlemen of the Mahamad, on the advice of the Reverend hakamim, 
decided to accede to his request, on the following conditions: 

He promises not to take another wife at Amsterdam as long as Sara 
Mendes, to whom he was married, is alive; if perchance he takes a wife 


43 Ms. Vlessing has found a document dated 1641 in which Dina Jacobs [sic] is 
referred to as "the widow of Adam Romes.” 

44 Cf. A. M. Vaz Dias, Uriel Da Costa, 1936, 20-22, 30-31; J. Meijer (Encyclopaedia 
Sefardica Neerlandica, 1949, 164) perceives this group as a "fringe society” (rand-milieu). 
It is hard to accept Vaz Dias' theory that the presence on the document of a jew's signature 
is absolute proof that Uriel, at the time of drawing up the document, was no longer under 
the ban of excommunication. 

45 Cf. Joseph d’Ancona, "Komst der Marranen in Noord-Nederland, de Portugese 
Gemeenten te Amsterdam tot de Vereniging (1639)” and "De Portugese Gemeente Talmoed 
Tora' te Amsterdam tot 1795” in Geschiedenis der Joden in Nederlartd (H. Brugmans and 
A. Frank, eds.), Amsterdam, 1940, 268-272. The synagogue on the Houtgracht was used 
until 1675, when the present monumental synagogue on the Deventer Houtmarkt (now 
Jonas Daniel Meijerplein) was consecrated. 



INTRODUCTION 


21 


in foreign parts, he will not come to live in this city being married to 
another and, if he does so, he will once again be placed under a ban 
of excommunication, as he was until now. 

Moreover, he will mount the teva and will read the declaration 
which the Gentlemen of the Mahamad have imposed on him and he 
will be given public malqut [39 stripes] before the congregation. 46 
Then he will prostrate himself at the foot of the stairs so that the 
worshippers might step over him. After that he will carry out whatever 
additional private penance, as between him and God, which the 
Reverend hakamim will recommend, to obtain reconciliation with God 
on account of his past sins. 

[Signed] Abraham Mendes 

Copy of the declaration which Abraham Mendes read from the teva: 

"Most contrite and repentant of my errors and the enormous sins 
I have committed I, Abraham Mendes, ask most humble pardon of the 
Lord of the World, of His Holy Law and of this entire Holy Congrega¬ 
tion for having abandoned the Law of the Lord; and my soul is sore 
afflicted by what I have done and the scandal that I have caused. In 
all sincerity I ascend this teva with contrition and humility. I am ready 
to carry out all the penance that has been laid upon me. All this is less 
than I deserve. I beg Your Lordships to pray to the Lord of the Universe 
to forgive the evil I have committed.” 47 


46 By the 17th century, malqut were only administered symbolically, i.e., the strap 
gently touches, but does not strike the bare back. Cf. the description by Ishac Atias, Tesoro 
de Preceptos, Venice, 1627, 126 (2nd ed. Amsterdam, 1649, 64v): [. . .] escuso apuntar, por 
todos haver visto el modo con que oy da malcut la Congregacion de Espaha . Y la diferencia 
es que el malcut de Ley se dava con toda fuerga y los de aora con la blandura que se ve, 
por no ser el malcut deste tiempo juridico, pues falta a Israel la juridicion criminal, y 
no es mas que una memoria, virtuosissima para alcangar perdon. ("[. . .] I need not go 
into detail, since everyone has seen the manner in which malqut are administered these 
days among the Sephardim. The difference is that malqut according to the Torah was 
laid on full force, whereas nowadays tenderly and gently, because present-day malqut 
has no legal validity, since Israel has no criminal jurisdiction. It is merely a symbolic 
chastisement, possessed of excellent efficacy to secure pardon.”) Atias was hakam of 
Hamburg’s Talmud Tora congregation at the time of Uriel's excommunication and 
dedicated his Tesoro de Preceptos to that congregation. 

47 Cf. Amsterdam Municipal Archives, Portuguese Archive, 19, f. 116. The first 
historian to call attention to this document was Yosef Kaplan ("The Social Functions 
of the *Herem' in the Portuguese Jewish Community of Amsterdam in the Seventeenth 
Century,” in Dutch Jewish History: Proceedings of the Symposium on the History of the 
Jews in the Netherlands, 1982, Jerusalem, 1984, 111-155: 133, 141-143). The document was 
published by H. P. Salomon in his Introduction to S.L. Mortera, Tratado da Verdade da 
Lei de Moises, Coimbra, 1988, 70-71. 



22 


INTRODUCTION 


The epithet "the Marriage Fiend” hints at Abraham Mendes' wrong¬ 
doing: bigamy. 48 The document discloses that Abraham Mendes was 
living under a ban of excommunication laid on him by the jewish 
authorities of Amsterdam. On November 13, 1639 he appeared before 
these authorities begging to be released from the excommunication. He 
was informed that before this could be effected he had to make certain 
promises and submit to prescribed penances. He accepted these condi¬ 
tions, and the sentence of scourging and trampling was subsequently 
carried out. 

Turning now to Uriel da Costa's Exemplar , we read of a different, 
and in many respects quite odd, sequence of events. In 1632 he was 
accused of not conforming to dietary and other precepts; he had 
dissuaded a Spaniard and an Italian, neither "of jewish descent”, from 
converting to judaism 49 ; finally, he was summoned before the 
authorities and sentenced to undergo prescribed humiliations or else 
be condemned to renewed excommunication. He refused to bend and 
was again put under the ban. For seven years he was harassed until 
he finally submitted (in 1639?) to the very same humiliating 
ceremony 50 first proposed as an alternative to excommunication, but 
now proffered as a means of securing release from it. 

Uriel's autobiographical account of his own penance tallies with 
the description of Abraham Mendes' down to the detail of his prostrate 
body being stepped over by all the congregants at the door of the 
synagogue. 51 


48 Five years later Abraham Mendes was again living in Amsterdam with a wife 
not Sara Mendes. On April 24 1644, the wardens prohibited both Abraham and Sara 
Mendes from setting foot in the synagogue, but no new excommunication was pronounced 
upon him. Cf. Amsterdam Municipal Archives, Portuguese Archive, 19, 255. 

49 On April 10 1640 a certain Jacob Hamis was excommunicated for having trans¬ 
gressed the regulation against making proselytes! Cf. Amsterdam Municipal Archives, 
Portuguese Archive, 19, 108, 117. 

so Uriel was sentenced to be dressed "in a mourning vestment, holding a black wax 
taper” (Exemplar). Black candles are known to us from Leon Modena's description of 
the excommunication ceremony (vide supra, n. 22) and Lucas' description of Spinoza's 
excommunication ceremony in 1656 (cf. A. Wolf, The Oldest Biography of Spinoza, London, 
1927, 105). 

51 This penance, as it was voluntarily undergone in the jewish community of 
Ferrara, is described in Francois Tissard's Grammatica hebraica, Paris, 1508, 21r. 
(Cf. N. Porges, "Gebhardt's Book on Uriel da Costa,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 19, 1, 1928, 
37-66:63.) It is also mentioned by Johann Buxtorf, Synagoga Iudaica das ist Juden Schul, 
Basel, 1603,603 (several times reprinted in Latin, German and Dutch translation). Another 
reference is found in the 16th-century cabbalistic work resit hokma by Eliyah ben Mose 
de Vidas (book 3, chapter 7). De Vidas prescribes that the penitent's body is to be stepped 



INTRODUCTION 


23 


No record has been found in the congregational archives of Uriel's 
reconciliation ceremony. Nor is there, in the municipal archives, any 
notice of his death. That he committed suicide in April 1640 in a fit of 
melancholy brought on by his degradation in the synagogue is reported 
by the Hamburg lutheran clergyman Johann Muller in his book 
Judaismus oder Judenthumb (Hamburg, 1644, 71-72, 1415). Further¬ 
more, according to Muller, who possessed a copy of it, Uriel's auto¬ 
biography was written shortly before his death and was "found on 
the table near his corpse.” 52 

Another version of Uriel's death is provided by Philip van Limborch 
(1633-1712), who also came into possession of a copy of the 
autobiography. Limborch published it in 1687 under the title Exemplar 
humanae vitae 53 as an appendix to a miscellany entitled De Veritate 
Religionis Christianae Arnica Collado cum Erudito Judaeo. 54 In his 
introduction to da Costa's autobiography Limborch writes: 

He seems to have finished it a few days before his death and after he 
had determined to put an end to his life. For burning with a desire of 
being revenged on his brother (others say his cousin) by whom he 
thought himself injured, he came to a resolution to shoot him and then 
himself. Accordingly, as this relative was going by his house one day, 
he levelled a pistol at him, but missing fire and feeling himself 
discovered, he immediately clapt too [= clapped shut] the door and, 
taking up another pistol which lay ready for that purpose, he shot 
himself and died in a terrible manner. In the house of the deceased 
this manuscript was found. A copy of it was communicated by a very 
eminent citizen to my great-uncle Simon Episcopius, amongst whose 
papers I found it. 55 


over, not on. If de Vidas' advice was followed in Amsterdam, it would account for da 
Costa's reference to the spectators' antics "jumping like monkeys" as they passed over 
his prostrate body. Cf. A. M. Vaz Dias, Uriel da Costa, 1936, 26. 

52 Cf. A. M. Vaz Dias, Uriel Da Costa, 1936, 28-29. 

53 The manuscript Latin text preserved in the University Library of Amsterdam 
is not in da Costa's hand; it may have been the copy in Limborch's possession. The first 
and last folios of this manuscript were reproduced as the frontispiece of Yoshuah 
Barjitschak's Uriel da Costa (The Hague, 1962). Gebhardt's edition of the Latin text 
(Schriften, 1922, 103-123) is taken from Limborch's editio princeps of 1687. 

54 "On the Truth of the Christian Religion, A Friendly Debate with a Learned Jew." 
The book consists mainly of a written debate between Limborch and Baltasar (Ishac) 
Orobio de Castro (1620-1687), the Portuguese-born scholastic theologian. Cf. H. P. Salomon, 
"Baruch Spinoza, Ishac Orobio de Castro and hakam Mosseh Rephael d'Aguilar on the 
Noachites: A Chapter in the History of Thought," Arquivos do Centro Cultural Portugues, 
14, 1979, 253-286: 261-263; Yosef Kaplan, From Christianity to Judaism, The Story of Isaac 
Orobio de Castro, Oxford, 1989. 

55 Cf. The Remarkable Life of Uriel Acosta, London, 1740. Cf. C. Gebhardt, op. cit., 
259-261. 



24 


INTRODUCTION 


In the absence of documental evidence, readers of the Exemplar 
must gauge for themselves the depth of the author's desperation at the 
moment he penned the following lines: 

[. . . ] where a man cannot be allowed an advocate to defend his cause 
or a judge to punish the injuries done him, it is not to be wondered 
at if he takes all opportunities to defend and revenge himself. 56 


2. Uriel da Costa and Leon Modena: Objections against Tradition 


We have seen how the objections to Tradition incorporated in 
Modena's magen ve-sina originated with Uriel da Costa. A basic 
similarity between those objections and the contents of the first part 
of da Costa's 1624 book bears this out. That first part of da Costa's 
book consists of fourteen brief chapters, each containing an example 
of how, in the writer's opinion, talmudic interpretation falsified scrip¬ 
tural law. But despite the similarity between the eleven objections in 
magen ve-sina and da Costa's fourteen chapters, numerous and signifi¬ 
cant divergencies set them apart as distinct versions. Besides noting 
the differences between them, it may be safely conjectured that 
Modena's replies generated several of the most significant changes. 57 
As an example, let us consider one of Uriel's objections, that against 
tefillin (phylacteries), and analyse the relationship between its earlier 
and later formulations. 

Modena's magen ve-sina presents the list of objections in two forms. 
The first is a paraphrastic summary and not a verbatim reproduction 
of the heretic's words. It seems to be Modena's own composition, 
teeming as it does with rabbinical turns of phrase and learned allusions. 
By contrast, in the second the objections are, as stated above, generally 
demarcated with verbal equivalents of quotation marks (e.g., "the 


56 Cf. Exemplar humanae vitae, near the end. 

57 True to an unwritten convention of the day, da Costa never identifies Leon 
Modena. 17th-century Western European authors rarely condescend to name their contem¬ 
poraries or immediate predecessors. In chapter 2 of the second part of his book, Uriel 
quotes a ten-line poem by Luis de Camoes, referring to him as "a certain poet, foremost 
among those of his nation.” Similarly, in chapter 7 of the second part, he simply refers 
to the philosopher he quotes as "a certain philosopher.” Such circumlocutions extend 
to places, e.g., in the preface to the second part of "Examination” Uriel speaks of Hamburg 
as "a city where I had been dwelling for a few years.” 



INTRODUCTION 


25 


following are his words” and "up to here are his words”). When 
considering the relationship between the remonstrations against Tradi¬ 
tion in Uriel's book of 1624 and the form those remonstrations were 
given eight years earlier in Modena's book, one is inclined to turn first 
to the formulation which Modena treats as a direct quotation of the 
heretic, rather than to Modena's paraphrase. 58 

Let us then consider Modena's putative improvements in da Costa's 
1616 performance. The first has to do with the changed sequence given 
to Uriel's objections. Modena chides Uriel for unaccountably tackling 
phylacteries first, instead of letting the general precede the particular. 
In 1624, implicitly accepting Modena's stricture, da Costa moves his 
treatment of the phylacteries to eighth place, allowing his general 
criticism of the Oral Law to occupy first place. 

We shall now survey the more substantive revisions prompted by 
Modena. 59 In (1616 B).l the heretic's words are introduced and cited 
as follows: 


He says, and these are his words: "It is not the Torah but only words 
of men that prescribe the putting on of tefillin. This is so because: 
1. Nothing is said explicitly in the Torah concerning the manner of 
manufacturing them out of leather and making cubic receptacles, 
whereas in the case of sisit everything is explained." Up to here 
his words. 

Modena corrects Uriel's misconception about sisit (Nm. 15, 37-41). 
If Uriel believed that the Torah had given a clear and detailed descrip¬ 
tion of the sisit , in contrast to the tefillin, he was mistaken, for: 

[the Law] does not indicate the number of strands nor their material: 
silk, wool or linen, nor their length and similar details. 


58 The fact that Modena consistently refers to the heretic in the third person shows 
that magen ve-sina was addressed to the Hamburg communal authorites who had 
consulted him, rather than directly to the heretic. 

59 Henceforward the three lists of objections will be designated as follows: the 
magen ve-sina versions will be dubbed (1616 A) and (1616 B), followed by Arabic numerals 
for subsections; the version constituting the first part of "Examination of Pharisaic Tradi¬ 
tions" will be designated, likewise, by its date of publication between parentheses (1624) 
and the Roman numeral "I", followed by Arabic numerals for chapters and subsections, 
e.g., (1624).I.8.4 = the fourth subsection of the eighth chapter of the first part of 
"Examination of Pharisaic Traditions." References to the second part of "Examination" 
will follow the same system, e.g., (1624).II.8 = chapter eight of the second part of 
"Examination of Pharisaic Traditions." 



26 


INTRODUCTION 


In (1624).I.8.1 Uriel will not allow the wool to be pulled over his 
eyes. While insisting that: 

If the Law had wanted such things [leather cubes and thongs] to be 
made it should firstly have commanded them, then indicated their shape 
or form, as it did with sisit, commanding its making and explaining 
its colour and application [. . .] 


he does not, however, claim any longer that Scripture gives a full 
explanation of sisit . He has clearly retracted from his 1616 position that 
Scripture provides a manual, as it were, for the making of sisit . His 
caution in the 1624 sisit paragraph once more betrays his mute accep¬ 
tance of Modena's criticism. 

In (1616 B).2 Uriel argued that, had the prescription concerning 
tefillin really been derived from the usually cited Pentateuchal verses, 
then they should be worn at all times, not only during morning worship 
services: 


"[. . . ] that obligation to wear them [were it indeed a Torah command¬ 
ment] would apply at all times and would not be restricted to morning 
prayers nor would their wearing be suspended on the sabbath and 
festival days.” Up to here his words. 


At this point in magen ve-sina Modena sets da Costa right. He 
declares that rabbinic law enjoins that ideally tefillin ought to be worn 
all day, and that it is only for practical reasons and out of considera¬ 
tions of modesty that most worshippers shrink from wearing them 
beyond the time of morning devotions. 

In (1624).I.8.4 any mention of tefillin being worn only at morning 
prayers has been dropped by Uriel, who now cavils only at the rabbis' 
suspending the use of phylacteries on sabbath and festival days: 

For if putting on tefillin were a precept of the Law, this precept would 
be obligatory not just all day, but every day [. . .] Therefore the provi¬ 
sion is entirely man-made, or it was against the Law that the people 
were exempted [on sabbaths and holy days] (we shall not include here 
their absurd response!) [. . .] 

By referring to a response, da Costa reinforces our conviction that 
his writing is very much contextually determined, reacting to an 
unnamed pointed answer to his original grievance. The author of the 
answer is, of course, none other than Modena and the reply da Costa 
calls "absurd” is the 'ot apologetic Modena ha used to justify the suspen¬ 
sion of tefillin on sabbaths and festival days. For Modena had asserted 



INTRODUCTION 


27 


in magen ve-sina that sabbath and festival days nullify the obligation 
to wear tefillin because these days as well as tefillin are designated in 
the Pentateuch by the epithet 'ot ("sign”), and therefore: 

[. . . ] were we not to [omit the wearing of tefillin on those days], their 
character as "sign-days” would be undermined [. . .] 60 

When Uriel ([1624].1.8.5) comments: 

It is equally erroneous to say that the knot on the left arm must be 
on a spot that faces and can be placed on the heart, in compliance with 
the precept: "and these words [.. . ] shall be on thy heart” [Dt. 5, 6] [. . . ] 

he is quite patently reacting to Modena, who had written in reply to 
(1616 B).3: 

One binds them in such a way as to fulfil quite literally the verse: [. . . ] 
and they shall be [. . . ] on thy heart [. . . ] [Dt. 6, 6], placing them on the 
biceps of the left arm, thereby ensuring that [. . .] the words are effec¬ 
tively written and placed on the heart [. . .] 61 

In his reply to (1616 B).l Modena refers to the use of booths and 
palm fronds prescribed in Lv. 23: 40, 42, comparing these precepts to 
that of tefillin, whereas his opponent had made no mention of booths 
or palms. In (1624).I Uriel devotes his whole chapter 10 to them. It seems 
likely that Uriel took his cue for this new chapter from Modena. 

These examples should suffice to convince us of Leon Modena's part 
in the final redaction of Uriel's objections against tefillin. 

To determine the full range of Modena's influence, as indeed its 
limits, an exhaustive comparison would be needed. For instance, in 
1616, da Costa had said nothing about the absence in the Law of Moses 
of any reference to posthumous rewards and punishments. In the 
Exemplar Uriel recounts how he "suddenly” decided to enrich his 


60 An obvious weakness in Modena's argument is, of course, the assumption that 
’ot in the Pentateuch applies to both the tefillin of the arm and to the tefillin of the head, 
whereas the latter is in fact never designated ’ot in Scripture and should therefore 
(by Modena's reasoning) be worn even on those ’ot days when the (arm) tefillin are to 
be omitted. Nor could Modena have assumed that the obligation of head and arm tefillin 
are interdependent: the Mishna rules that the two are separate obligations (cf. Menahot 
4, 1). Moreover, the word ’ot in the Pentateuch never refers to festival days but only to 
the seventh day of the week. Cf. tora temima on Ex. 13, 9. 

61 Modena seems to overlook the Talmud's requiring left-handed persons to bind 
the tefillin on their right arm. 



28 


INTRODUCTION 


disquisition on "the vanity and invalidity of the traditions and 
ordinances of the Pharisees, and their repugnancy to the Law of Moses” 
when he discovered that "the Law of Moses is quite silent [about a future 
state or the immortality of the soul] and only proposes temporal 
rewards and punishments to the observers and transgressors thereof.” 
As it happens, one of Modena's "proofs of the necessity for Tradition 
and the Oral Law” (magen ve-sina, reply to [1616.BJ.7) is formulated in 
the form of a rhetorical question, which may have prompted da Costa's 
decision to append to his objections against Pharisaic traditions three 
chapters on this topic: 

And as to beliefs, where [in the Law of Moses] do we find clearly set 
out the survival of the soul, posthumous reward and punishment, 
paradise and Gehenna, resurrection, etc.? 

The related and oft-debated question of any reciprocal impact Uriel 
da Costa may have had on Modena can receive here but the scantiest 
of treatments. In 1622 Modena wrote his masterpiece qol sakal ("The 
Voice of the Fool”), a major critique of prevailing rabbinic judaism. 
In his preface Modena claims that someone had handed him in a Venice 
street a manuscript by one Amitai bar Yedaya Ibn Raz, "written at 
Alcala in the year of creation 5260.” 62 The attribution was, of course, 
fictional. Amitai speaks with the voice of Modena and Modena 
permeates every syllable. But also in qol sakal may be descrived some 
fruit that grew in its author's mind from seed sown there by Uriel da 
Costa. 63 

This would somehow explain why in 1948 Isaiah Sonne tried to 
make a case for Uriel da Costa's authorship of qol sakal, a text which, 
according to Sonne, was Modena's Hebrew translation from the Por- 


62 The author's name is obviously fanciful and by 1500 there had already for eight 
years been no jews in Spain. 

63 For instance, qol sakal claims that present-day tefillin are a rabbinic fabrica¬ 
tion and, like Uriel and the Karaites before him, denies that Ex. 13: 9, 16; Dt. 6, 8 and 
Dt. 11, 18 are intended to be followed in a literal manner. Cf. the English translation 
of qol sakal by Talya Fishman, part of her Harvard University Ph.D. diss., 1986: "Kol 
Sachal's Critique of Rabbinic Tradition,” 281-289. On the other hand, qol sakal does not 
discuss the talion, the burning of the priest's daughter, the goring ox and other such 
issues important to Uriel but of no practical relevance to jewish life in modern society. 
Chapter 7 is devoted to a demonstration of the immortality of the soul, which takes account 
of Scripture's silence on the matter. For a succinct comparison between Modena's qol 
sakal and the objections submitted by Uriel in 1616, cf. Jakob J. Petuchowski, The Theology 
of Haham David Nieto, N.Y. 1954, 35-48. 



INTRODUCTION 


29 


tuguese of "Examination of Pharisaic Traditions.” 64 The unfounded 
nature of this shrewd conjecture is now clear. No writer in the 17th 
century but Leon Modena was endowed with the wit and proficiency 
in rabbinic sources that every page of the inimitable qol sakal exudes. 
And if "Amitai bar Yedaya Ibn Raz” is an idealized "Uriel da Costa” 
with whom Modena identifies, one may even venture that in qol sakal 
the sympathies of the complex rabbi are subtly stacked in favour of 
his heterodox alter ego . 65 


3. Samuel da Silva and Leon Modena 


The dialogic line between Modena and da Costa as well as that 
between the latter and his opponent da Silva may aptly be said to 
intersect with a third line linking Modena to da Silva. In his prologue 
"To the Gentle Reader” da Silva writes that da Costa: 

[. . . ] proclaimed it a great iniquity to celebrate a festival for two 
consecutive days, where the Law only commanded one day of celebra¬ 
tion. He did not accept the legitimate reason given for this by the 
prophets and holy men who lived at the time of the First and Second 
Temple [. . .] 

Da Costa was countering the institution of two days for the celebra¬ 
tion of every festival for those who resided outside of the Holy Land. 
(Given the recognized difficulty of transmitting the rabbinically 
calculated actual date to all scattered communities, this procedure was 
meant to ensure that one of those two days would coincide with the 
actual festival day prescribed by the Law of Moses.) In his last chapter, 
however, da Silva attributes the two-day feasts to the sages: 

[. . .] Our sages considered this method [i.e. the empirical method of 
establishing festival dates, whereby one-day festivals are celebrated 
for two days in the diaspora] better and more reliable [. . .] 


64 Cf. "Leon Modena and the Da Costa Circle in Amsterdam," Hebrew Union 
College Annual , 21, 1948, 1-28. Modena's authorship of qol sakal was definitively 
established by Isaac E. Barzilay, "Finalizing an Issue: Modena's Authorship of the 'Qol 
Sakhal',” in Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his Eightieth 
Birthday (English Section), 1, Jerusalem, 1974, 135-166. 

65 By way of a pun on the word sakal [= fool] and the word sahal [= whelp]) the 
title alludes to Modena's first names: Yehuda 'Arye Leon [cf. Gn. 49, 9]; the phrase qol 
sahal is found in Job 4, 10. 



30 


INTRODUCTION 


a statement which makes for a manifest contradiction, unless da Silva 
assumes that the particular "sages” he refers to lived at the time of 
the first commonwealth and, hence, believes that festivals were 
celebrated outside of the Land of Israel for two days as far back as the 
first Temple era. 

This is the very assumption put forth by Leon Modena in his 
astonishing reply to Uriel's objection (1616 B).3: 

[... ] We should be content to put into practice the custom of the period 
of the prophets, for if they did not abandon it, it is not for us to do 
so [. .. ] Our sages explained that no concession or negligence is to be 
tolerated in respect to the observance of the second and eighth festival 
days [. . . ] For this custom existed in the highest antiquity at the time 
of the prophets and the sages, when there could surely have been no 
tampering with the Torah [. . .] 

Later in his reply Modena addresses the anomaly da Costa had 
exposed in the rabbinic calendar, whereby the Day of Atonement, alone 
among the festivals, is kept for one day and not for two. In the first 
place, says Modena, a 48-hour fast would have been an intolerable 
burden. But, lest anyone be plagued by scruples for having fasted on 
the wrong day and eaten on the true Day of Atonement, Modena reassur¬ 
ingly adds: 

[. . . ] if some people now and then observe the Day of Atonement on 
the ninth day, it is acceptable, because there is some support for this 
in the Torah, where it says: "[. . ..] ye shall afflict your souls on the 
ninth day of the month on the even [...]” [Lv. 23, 32] 

The scruples Modena is allaying must have given pause to many 
a conscience. For by observing the fast on one day only, namely the 
tenth day of the month counting from the first day of Rosh Hashanah, 
the chance would always be there that, if the second day of Rosh 
Hashanah turned out to be the true Rosh Hashanah, one had fasted on 
the ninth day of Tishri. But the Law specifically commands fasting on 
the tenth day: "[. . .] on the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day 
of Atonement [...]” [Lv. 23, 27]. By his suppression of the last clause 
of Leviticus 23, 32, Modena defends the one-day fast, even if that 
one day turn out to be the ninth rather than the tenth of the month. 

So when Dr. da Silva writes in his last chapter: 

[.. .] To remedy this problem and avoid error, they celebrated every 
festival for two days outside of the Holy Land, save only the Great Day 
of Kippur. Since not all would be able to fast two days consecutively, 
it was decided always to determine its [i.e., the Day of Atonement's] 



INTRODUCTION 


31 


date by counting ten days from the first day of the seventh month. If 
it should later transpire that the beginning of that month had been 
proclaimed in Yerusalayim on the second day and they had accordingly 
celebrated the Kippur on the ninth day, they had not transgressed the 
Law, which had anticipated this situation and provided a remedy, for 
it is written: "[...] and ye shall afflict your souls on the ninth of the 
month on the even [...]” 


he is again simply quoting Modena. 66 

Da Silva can never be accused of excessive originality. With few 
exceptions he relies on rabbinical sources. In da Silva's chapter 30 
("Containing Some Proofs of Tradition and the Oral Law”), a cluster 
of material from Modena's "proofs of the necessity for Tradition and 
the Oral Law” referred to above (magen ve-sina, reply to [1616.BJ.7) may 
equally be found, e.g.: 

a) the textual integrity of the Torah could only have been 
preserved through oral transmission, in spite of the labile 
nature of the Hebrew vocalic system; 

b) only thanks to the Oral Tradition, normative practice could be 
founded on some enigmatic verses and terms of the Torah: for 
instance, the traditional identification of "the fruit of the tree 
hadar” in Lv. 23, 40 with a citron: if not for the Oral Law "some 
would claim it is an orange or a quince” [da Silva]; "a 
pomegranate or an apple” [Modena]) 67 ; 

c) had Moses not spent his forty days and nights on Mount Sinai 
learning the Oral Law, he could be accused of idling; 

d) since the children of Israel were not gainfully employed during 
their years in the desert, they must have spent their time 
learning the Oral Tradition from Moses; 


66 More traces of magen ve-sina are discernible in da Silva's last chapter, 
particularly in the paragraph beginning "That great sage R. Hillel.” 

67 The pomegranate and the carob are proposed — only to be rejected — as 
candidates for the "fruit of the tree hadar’’ in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkot 3, 5); the 
pomegranate and the quince in the Babylonian Talmud (Sukka 31b), but in neither Talmud 
is the discussion part of a "proof for the necessity of an Oral Law.” Modena’s qol sakal 
contains a parallel list of alleged obscurities in the Torah requiring elucidation by an 
Oral Law. As in magen ve-sina, an apple and a pomegranate appear as possible candidates 
for the "fruit of the tree hadar.” (Cf. Fishman, op. cit., 219-220.) The orange, unknown 
to the Talmuds, may be da Silva’s touch. 



32 


INTRODUCTION 


e) the judges appointed by Moses on the advice of Jethro could 
only have ruled according to the Oral Law; 

f) the institution of prayer can only derive from the Oral Law; 

g) the Oral Law must not be looked upon as a system autonomous 
and separate from the Written Law. 

Da Silva gives no credit for his borrowings from Modena, for, no 
more than da Costa, is he inclined to name-dropping or to displaying 
other than Scriptural source-references. Besides, it would probably not 
have occurred to him that the Venetian rabbi was in any way original 
in his apologetics; nor even that there is room for originality within 
the kind of closed system of transmitted wisdom he must have supposed 
Modena to represent. 


4. Uriel da Costa and Samuel da Silva: Uriels Three Chapters 
Against the Souls Immortality 


In his book of 1623 Dr. da Silva reproduces three chapters 
(numbered 23-25) of Uriel da Costa's then still unpublished Examina¬ 
tion of Pharisaic Traditions. The three chapters were taken from da 
Costa's autograph copy, as da Silva himself tells us: 

[. . . ] we managed to obtain a single quire [um so quademo], which we 
can faithfully attest is in his own hand. Here now follows a word for 
word transcript. We have merely divided it into sections, for the clearer 
refutation of each of his points [. . . ] 68 

These same three chapters figure in part 2 of da Costa's 1624 book 
(hereafter [1624J.II]), now numbered 1-3: 

[. . .] this man got hold of a couple of quires of ours [alguns cademos 
nossos] which deal with man's soul and, with some modifications 
[mudando palavras], he incorporated their contents into a work of his 
own which also contained his reply [...] Before tackling his reply, it 
is necessary to present what we wrote concerning the soul. Here follows 
the first chapter. 69 


68 'Treatise on the Immortality of the Soul,” Chapter 8. 

69 Cf. "Examination of Pharisaic Traditions,” Part II, Preface. Da Costa's "couple 
of quires” (opp. da Silva's "single quire”) is perhaps idiomatic. 



INTRODUCTION 


33 


Thus there were three versions of Uriel's three chapters concer¬ 
ning the soul and its destiny: 

1. Hand-written quires containing three chapters by Uriel 
(numbered 23-25) which somehow came into the possession of 
Dr. da Silva. 

2. The text of these quires with minor and mostly immaterial 
changes, incorporated into Dr. da Silva's book of 1623. 

3. A slightly touched up version of those three chapters (numbered 
1-3), incorporated into Uriel's book of 1624 ([1624J.II). 

A meticulous comparison of (2) with (3) reveals approximately 450 
variants between the two texts, nearly all of a purely mechanical nature. 
In da Silva's chapters, the introductory da Costa extracts have been 
tailored to the orthographic and morphological norms obtaining in his 
own writings, which are different from those observed in da Costa's 
book. For instance, throughout, where da Silva has no, num, Deus, 
traigao, fruto , da Costa's spelling is em o, em um , Deos, treigao, fruito. 
Curiously, though da Silva was da Costa's senior by some dozen years, 
his orthographic system is, at least in these cases, less old-fashioned. 
By contrast, da Silva uses the "archaic” forms polo , cudar, baxo, 
whereas da Costa uses the "modern” forms pelo, cuidar, baixo. 
Da Silva's recension (2) differs from (3) also in the following "details”: 
it substitutes one tense for another, singulars for plurals (and viceversa) 
and one synonym for another; it eliminates printer's errors and 
introduces new ones; sometimes it changes the word order and makes 
other stylistic "improvements,” though a number of the latter (perhaps 
misreadings or misprints) turn out to be more or less senseless corrup¬ 
tions, as when de Ester ("from Esther”) becomes deste ("of this one”), 
futuro ("future”) becomes ficticio ("fictitious”), derradeiro ("last”) 
becomes verdadeiro ("real”), virao ("will come”) becomes viviram ("will 
live”). Surely unintentional are the omissions of strings of words, e.g., (2) 
(chapter 14) has acabarseam o fim delies ("they will end, their end”) 
instead of (3): Acabarsehdo os breves e contados dias de minha vida , 
vira o fim delles ("the brief, numbered days of my life will end, their 
end will come”). 

In two cases the divergencies between the versions are unaccounted 
for by any of the above, least of all by fluke or accident. In fact, one 
of them brings to the surface a slight conspiratorial intent. Unex¬ 
pectedly, for all its technicality, this wrangling over flexions and forms 
affords a glimpse into an all too human side of da Costa and, for that 
matter, of da Silva too. 



34 


INTRODUCTION 


Da Costa accused the believers in the soul's immortality of tenden- 
tiously interpreting Job 19, 25. This verse is cited three times in 
(1624).II.2, once, simply to inform readers that the "immortalists” use 
this verse as a proof-text; the second and third times, to introduce his 
own divergent interpretation and paraphrase. 

In (2) (da Silva's chapter 16) da Costa cites the verse from Job as 
follows: 

eu conhego meu redimidor vivo, & verdadeiro[!], sobre o po estarei [... ] 
("I know my redeemer alive, and truthful [!], on the dust I shall stand”) 

But in (3) (da Costa's chapter 2) this reads: 

e eu conhego meu remidor vivo, e derradeiro sobre o poo estara [. . .] 
("I know my redeemer alive, and last on the dust he shall stand”) 

In this citation alone there are no fewer than four divergencies 
between (2) and (3): 

1. (3) begins with the conjunction e ("and”), present in the original 

Hebrew, but (2) omits it. 

2. (2) spells the Portuguese word for "redeemer” redimidor ; (3) 

spells it remidor. 

3. (2) has verdadeiro ("truthful”) for the Hebrew word aharon 

("last”); (3) has derradeiro ("last”). 

4. (2) has estarei ("I shall stand”) for the Hebrew word yaqum 

("he will stand”); (3) has estara ("he shall stand”). 

Let us take each of these differences in turn. The introductory 
conjunction may well have been accidentally eliminated by a typesetter: 
in the following appearance of Job 19, 25, (2) has the conjunction, but 
not the personal pronoun. As to redimidor, consistently found in (2) and 
remidor, consistently found in (3), there is no difference in meaning. 
Both forms were acceptable in the 17th century, although redimidor 
came to be considered archaic. The word verdadeiro is an obvious 
misprint: both of the following citations in (2) have derradeiro. The word 
estarei, however, is present every time Job 19, 25 is quoted in (2). Could 
it be it a misprint, or did someone intentionally tamper with the text? 
And, if so, why? 



INTRODUCTION 


35 


To answer these questions, let us look at the next two appearances 
of Job 19, 25 in (2) and (3). In (2) (da Silva's chapter 22), da Costa's 
text reads: 


Segue o lugarde Yob: & confesso meu redimidor vivo, & por derradeiro 
sobre meu pd estarei [...] ('Then comes the place in Iyob: 1 confess 
my redeemer alive, and at last on my dust I will stand'.”) 

where (3) (da Costa's chapter 2) reads: 

Seguese o lugar de Iiob: E eu conhego meu remidor vivo, e por derradeiro 
sobre o po estara [. . . ] ("Then comes the place in Iyob: 'And I know my 
redeemer alive, and at last on the dust he shall stand'.”) 

This time the renditions of Job 19, 25 in (2) and (3) present the 
following four differences: 

1. The introductory conjunction is restored in (2) but the personal 
pronoun eliminated; (3) remains the same. 

2. The Hebrew word yada c ti ("I know”) is mistranslated confesso 
("I confess”) in (2); (3) has the correct conhego. 

3. The Hebrew word c afar ("dust”) is misconstrued meu pd ("my 
dust”) in (2); (3) keeps the more correct approximation o pd ("the 
dust”). 

4. For the Hebrew word yaqum ("he will stand”) (2) has estarei 
("I shall stand”); (3) has estara ("he shall stand”). 

The obviously accidental elimination of the word eu in (2) does not 
affect the meaning: Portuguese verbs may do without personal 
pronouns. The word confesso in (2) is a misprint for conhego , as 
evidenced by the earlier correct reading. So too is the substitution of 
meu for o a typographical accident, since (2) has the more correct 
reading in the two other places. But what about estarei ? 

Now let us look at the third and final appearance of Job 19, 25. 
Further on in (2) (still da Silva's chapter 22), da Costa's transcription 
of the verse reads: 

Eu confesso meu redimidor vivo [...]<£ por derradeiro sobre o pd estarei 
[. . . ] ("I confess my redeemer alive [. .. ] and at last on the dust I shall 
stand.”) 



36 


INTRODUCTION 


In (3) we find: 

Eu conhego meu remidor vivo [. . . ] E por derradeiro sobre o po estara 
[. .. ] ("I know my redeemer alive [. . . ] and at last on the dust he shall 
stand.”) 

This time there are but three differences: confesso (2) and conhego 
(3); redimidor (2) and remidor (3); estarei (2) and estara (3). We have seen 
that the first two are without significance but we ought to consider 
the third: why does (2) have "I shall stand” and (3) "he shall stand”? 

In his chapter 22 da Silva mocks da Costa for having adopted the 
Vulgate's erroneous rendering of the verb yaqum in Job 19, 25 in the 
first person. Replying to da Silva in (1624).II.16, da Costa confesses to 
having at one time rendered the verb in question in the first person. 70 
It is most significant that da Costa does not accuse da Silva of 
misquoting him. Yet we have just seen that in (1624).II.2 da Costa has 
the verb three times in the third person. 

When putting together the definitive version (3) of his chapters, da 
Costa himself must have changed the original estarei into estara, without 
alluding to the change. In his chapter 16 he should have accredited da 
Silva. Evidently, da Costa is not a man to eat humble pie. 

Having carried his duplicity this far, he is obliged to make further 
surreptitious changes because the two verbs in his paraphrase corres¬ 
pond to the former estarei and not to the emendation estara: 

andarei & me moverei, yndaque agora amigos vos parega tarn pouco 
aparelhado para andar’ [. . . ] ("I shall walk and I shall move about, even 
though at present, my friends, I seem to you in such poor shape for 
walking.”) 

To extricate himself from this predicament, in (3) he puts all the 
verbs of the paraphrase (adding one for good measure) into the third 
person and equates the subject of those verbs, now taken to mean "my 
body”, with "my skin”, though "my skin” only appears in Job 19, 26, 
with which he has not yet dealt: 

e que no fim desta minha angustia sobre a terra estara, andara, e se 
movera minha pelle, meu corpo (a pelle se toma por todo o corpo no 


70 "[...] the best Latin versions [. . .] do adopt the third person and originally so 
did we. Yet we had still not completely made up our mind. But, since it all comes down 
to the same thing and it really makes little difference whether the verse is read T Shall 
stand’ or 'my flesh shall stand’, we opted for the first person [. ..] [emphasis supplied] 
("Examination of Pharisaic Traditions,” Chapter 16). 



INTRODUCTION 


37 


mesmo Iyob)'[. . .] ("and that when my anguish will come to an end, 
my skin, that is to say, my body — the skin may be a synecdoche for 
the whole body in the book of Iyob — will stand, will walk and will 
move about.’’) 

He no doubt hoped to hoodwink the unwitting reader, who is to 
believe that "my body shall stand” and "I shall stand” is all much of a 
muchness. Were da Costa's ploy to have gone undetected, the polemical 
exchange that takes place in da Silva's chapter 22 and da Costa's 
chapter 16 would have remained well-nigh incomprehensible. 71 

Another variant between (2) and (3), though far less consequential, 
is telling enough to be noted here. It occurs towards the close of 
(1624).II.3. In his chapter 28, da Silva quotes da Costa: 

[. . .] en tudo se trocou & mudou minha sorte, porque alumiou Deus 
meu entendimento tirandome de duvidar das cousas que me affligiam 
& pondome no caminho da verdade confirmeza, & todos meus bes 
pullaram e cregeram a vista dos homes, & minha saude foy guardada 
com tarn particular & notoria assistencia divina, que my 

fortune took a completely new turn, because God enlightened my 
understanding, liberating me from doubts about the things that were 
afflicting me and putting me firmly on the way of truth. Everyone could 
see my worldly goods increasing by leaps and bounds and my health 
was maintained with such special and obvious Divine protection that 
[...]”) 

In (1624).II.3 this passage appears as: 

[. . .] era tudo se trocou, e mudou minha sorte; por que me tirou Deos 
de duvidas que me affligiam, pondome no caminho da verdade com 
firmeza; meus bens, e minha saude foi guardada, com tarn particular, 
e notoria assistencia divina, que [...] ("[...] my fortune took a 
completely new turn, because God removed from me the doubts that 
had been afflicting me, putting me firmly on the way of truth. My wealth 
and my health was maintained with such special and obvious Divine 
protection that [. . .]”) 

In (3) "my wealth and my health” govern a singular verb, although 
"wealth” (bens) is itself a plural in Portuguese. We suspect that 


71 As will be pointed further on ([1624J.II. 16, footnote 2), da Silva does not come 
out of this exchange looking any more honest than da Costa. 



38 


INTRODUCTION 


this passage was rewritten by da Costa, after taking note of da 
Silva's strictures: 

[.. . ] he has finally sunk into his ultimate blindness, boasting that he 
has been granted worldly goods for his merits [... ] The worldly advan¬ 
tages which make him so conceited, such as enjoying good health [. . . ] 

and that he attempted, careless of grammar in his haste, to tone down 
his own grandiloquence. Thus, once again, (2) rather than (3) represents 
what da Costa had originally written. 


5. The Question of the Souls Immortality Placed in Historical 
Perspective 


The immortality of the soul as a specific and explicit doctrine is 
Greek in provenance, originating with Socrates (470-400 B.C.E) or Plato 
(428-348 B.C.E.). Plato's Phaedo contains a number of arguments on 
behalf of the immortality of the individual rational soul. Aristotle 
(384-322 B.C.E.) expressed views which have sometimes been inter¬ 
preted as supporting, at other times as opposing this doctrine. Epicurus 
(341-270 B.C.E.) and his followers were outspokenly opposed to the 
concept of immortality, arguing that the soul is corporeal and dissolves 
with the body. 

Unlike the concept of immortality, that of resurrection is non-Greek 
in origin, even though the kindred idea of metempsychosis was certainly 
known to Pythagoras (570-500 B.C.E.). Both beliefs come together in the 
New Testament. While presenting no definition of the soul, it suggests 
the soul's immortality through numerous allusions to everlasting 
posthumous rewards and punishments ( e.g. t Matt. 5, 12; 13, 49-50; 10, 
20; 25: 34, 46; Mark 10, 43-44; 2 Cor. 5, 1; 2 Thess. 1, 8-9; Gal. 5, 21; 
Eph. 5, 5; Rev. 21,8). The belief in resurrection is central to New Testa¬ 
ment theology (cf. Matt. 22, 31-33; Mark 12, 26-27; Luke 20, 37-38; 
Acts 17, 32; 24, 15; 1 Cor. 15, 12). Despite their disparate provenance, 
the two notions seem to have become linked ever more closely, at least 
in the post-Biblical judeo-christian traditions. When the fourth Lateran 
Council proclaimed in 1215 that in the resurrection all men "will rise 
again with their own bodies, the very ones they bore about them during 
their life-time,” interminable, if not infinite survival was implied. The 
duration of the soul's existence after resurrection and if the latter 
should be thought of as permanent was a matter of dispute. For those 



INTRODUCTION 


39 


who, like our Dr. Samuel da Silva, entertain a quasi-pantheistic notion 
about the human soul: 

[. . . ] his soul was more than heavenly, because it proceeded directly 
from God Himself [.. . ] [Chapter 1] [. . . ] different from the divinity in 
that it has a beginning; like unto the divinity in that it has no end [. .. ] 
[Chapter 16] 

the soul, being as it were, an emanation of the divinity, must by defini¬ 
tion be immortal. 

The Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, c. 105-c. 165; Irenaeus, c. 
125-202; Tertullian, c. 155c. 222; Origen, c. 185-254; Augustine, 354-430; 
etc.) believed that the soul of a righteous person survived the body, and 
will be reunited with it at the time of resurrection. The souls of the 
wicked are doomed, according to some Fathers, to eternal punishment; 
according to others, to annihilation. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-c. 398) 
argued, against Plato, that the soul is not immortal by nature, but that 
immortality and resurrection are gifts of God. In his Latin treatise "on 
the immortality of the soul,” Augustine argued that the soul is poten¬ 
tially but not intrinsically immortal. 72 

Avicenna (980-1037), the first great medieval commentator on 
Aristotle, contends that the rational soul is a self-sustaining substance 
which becomes individualized when it is received by the body. He was 
also the first to distinguish between the vegetable, animal and rational 
souls. He believed that what he called the vegetable and animal souls 
perished with the body. The rational soul, on the other hand, in spite 
of losing its individuality when the body dies, is absorbed into immortal 
universal reason. 

The great Aristotelian Averroes (1126-1198), whose commentary on 
Aristotle heavily influenced scholasticism, interpreted Aristotle to mean 
that what is eternal is the human being's active intellect (which he does 
not call "soul”), and even that only collectively, not individually. 73 
With Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) the immortality of the soul became 
a fundamental tenet of canonic Christian doctrine. He held that the soul 
(i.e., the rational soul) is multiplied according to the number of 
individual human beings and thus individually immortal. While 


72 Cf. Harry Austryn Wolfson, "Immortality and Resurrection in the Philosophy 
of the Church Fathers," Religious Philosophy, Cambridge (Mass.), 1961, 69-103. 

73 William L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, Eastern and Western 
Thought, Atlantic Highlands (N.J.), 1980, s.v., "Immortality," "Socrates," "Aristotle," 
"Averroes." 



40 


INTRODUCTION 


assigning vegetative and sensory functions to the rational human soul 
as long as it is attached to the body, Thomas claims for it an infinitely 
prolonged separate individual existence once it ceases to exercise these 
functions. After the death of the body it will be held accountable for 
its past actions while still united with the body and will be rewarded 
or punished accordingly, both as a soul and, after resurrection, as a 
reconstituted entity made up once more of body and soul. Defending 
Christian dogma against Averroistic tendencies, Marsilio Ficino (1433- 
1499) argued in his Theologia Platonica de Immortalitate Animarum 
(1482) that the survival of the soul is the main foundation of religion 
and that there is a direct connection between faith in the soul's immor¬ 
tality and faith in God. "The soul, freed and pure, becomes (in a certain 
sense) God.” 74 

The fifth Lateran Council in 1513 proclaimed heretical the Aver- 
roist theory of the dispersion of individuality in a universal active 
intellect, and, as an article of faith, the individual immortality of the 
human soul. Just three years later, in 1516, Pietro Pomponazzi 
(1462-1525) published his famous De immortalitate animae, which 
created a storm of controversy. 75 Five treatises appeared against it 
and Pomponazzi himself wrote two lengthy works in its defence: 
Apologia (1518) and Defensorium (1519). 76 He concluded that the soul's 
immortality cannot be demonstrated by reason or Aristotelian prin¬ 
ciples but that it must simply be accepted on faith. He dissented in a 
complex way from both Averroes' and Thomas Aquinas' interpretations 
of Aristotle's thought on the survival of the soul. The former had 
attributed to Aristotle the view that there is no individual immortality 
after death while the latter had read some kind of individual immor¬ 
tality into Aristotle's writings. According to Pomponazzi the human 
soul, occupying a middle position between the souls of animals and pure 
intelligence, "needs the body for its object, but not for its subject.” Thus 


74 Cf. Paul Oskar Kristeller, "The Theory of Immortality in Marsilio Ficino,” 
Journal of the History of Ideas , 1, 1940, 299-319. 

75 Cf. Ibid., s.v., "Pomponazzi.” Pomponazzi' s "Treatise” was translated into 
English by William Henry Hay II. It is included in E. Cassirer, P. O. Kristeller and J. 
H. Randall, The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, Chicago, 1948, 280-381. Cf. P. O. Kristeller, 
"Two Unpublished Questions on the Soul by Pietro Pomponazzi,” Medievalia et 
Humanistica, 8, 1955, 76-101. 

76 Cf. Etienne Gilson, "Autour de Pomponazzi. Problematique de l'immortalite de 
l'ame en Italie au debut du XVI e siecle,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et litteraire du 
Moyen Age, 36, 1961 (1962), 163-279; id., "L'affaire de l'immortalite de l'ame a Venise au 
debut du XVFsiecle,” Umanesimo europeo e umanesimo veneziano (ed. by Vittore 
Branca), Florence, 1963, 31-61. 



INTRODUCTION 


41 


"the soul is absolutely mortal, though in some respects immortal.” 77 
Pomponazzi further argued that virtue is its own reward and should 
not be pursued for the sake of fame. 

It is a matter of dispute whether Pomponazzi's thought was 
heterodox. Since Pomponazzi rejected the Averroist theory of the unity 
of the intellect and recognized the individual immortality of the soul 
as an article of faith, his treatises, though subjected to fierce theological 
attack, were never formally condemned or put on the Index of 
prohibited books. Some scholars have suggested that his secret inten¬ 
tion was to undermine Christianity. Paul Oskar Kristeller, on the other 
hand, sees Pomponazzi as part of the trend to separate the domains 
of theology and philosophy, thereby freeing the philosopher "to develop 
and reach the most probable conclusions of reason while accepting the 
teachings of religion on the basis of faith and authority.” 78 

The first treatise written in Portuguese bearing the title "On the 
Immortality of the Soul” was the work of Alvaro Gomes (1510 - ?), the 
most important theologian in Portugal during the first half of the 
16th century and sometime professor of theology at the University of 
Coimbra. The manuscript bearing that title forms the second part of 
his "Treatise on the Perfection of the Soul,” dated 1550, which remained 
unpublished until 1947. It is an endeavour to reconcile Aristotle's 
negative views on immortality with the positive ones of Plato, the New 
Testament and later Christian theology. Gomes dedicated it to king 
John III who had been his patron and constant protector from his 
earliest youth. In the course of his brief essay (93 pages in large print), 
he cites no fewer than 42 authorities. Like da Costa and da Silva, Gomes 
was born into a New Christian family. His parents, Spanish jews who 
had taken refuge in Portugal in 1492, were forcibly converted, along 
with their co-religionists on Portuguese soil, in 1497. 79 


77 Cf. P. O. Kristeller, art. cit., 80. John Herman Randall, Jr., words Pomponazzi’s 
conclusion somewhat more provocatively: "[...] the soul is essentially and truly mortal, 
relatively and improperly speaking immortal.” (Cf. The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, 
272). To contend with Olaf Pluta (Kritiker der Unsterblichkeitsdoktrin in Mittelalter und 
Renaissance , Amsterdam, 1986, 6) that this conclusion achieved "der Befreiung von der 
damals alle Lebensbereiche iiberschattenden Angst vor dem Gericht am Ende des Lebens 
und vor der ewigen Verdammnis” seems somewhat far-fetched, to say the least. For 
Pomponazzi's possible influence on Martin Luther (1483-1546), cf. Carl Stange, "Zur 
Auslegung dess Aussungen Luthers iiber die Unsterblickeit der Seele,” Zeitschrift fur 
systematische Theologie, 36, 1926, 735-784. 

78 P. O. Kristeller, art. cit., 83. 

79 Cf. Alvaro Gomes, Tractado da Perfeigaom da Alma (Introduction and notes by 
A. Moreira de Sa), Coimbra, 1947; H. P. Salomon, Review of "Alvaro Gomes, Apologia 
(Texto Inedito do Seculo XVI)”, Arquivos do Centro Cultural Portugues, 17, 1982, 964-966. 



42 


INTRODUCTION 


6. Jewish Views on Eschatology 

We may conveniently begin our review of eschatological belief 
among the jews with the controversy on resurrection between the 
Pharisees and the Sadducees. Although they do not surface, or, at any 
rate, attain pre-eminence, until Hasmonean times, it is in connection 
with the Pharisees that we first hear of firmly held opinions on the 
question of the soul's durability beyond physical death. Thus Flavius 
Josephus: 

They [the Pharisees] believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them 
and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments accor¬ 
ding as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life. And the latter 
are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall 
have the power to revive and live again, on account of which doctrines 
they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people [. . . ] But the 
doctrine of the Sadducees is this: that souls die with the bodies. 80 

Evidently the idea of immortality had already at an early date 
become inextricably tied up with that of resurrection to the point where 
Josephus can talk about them as he does in this passage. 

The chief bone of contention between our two polemicists is 
whether or not the Bible teaches of an afterlife. Da Costa the critic 
anticipates modern Biblical scholarship when he dates Daniel (the only 
book of the jewish canon wherein the hope of resurrection is explicit 
[cf. B.T. Sanhedrin, 92a]) to the Pharisaic age. 

Most Talmudic rabbis believed in a place called gehinnom 
(= Gehenna: variously described and located) where the wicked are 
subject to posthumous punishment lasting twelve months (cf. Mishna, 
Eduyot, 2:10). Some rabbis thought an exception would be made for 
the egregiously wicked, such as apostates, heretics and informers, 
whose punishment would be unlimited in time (cf. inter alia , Rosh 
Hashanah 17a). Other rabbis denied the very existence of Gehenna, e.g .: 

R. Simeon b. Lakish says: There is no Gehenna in the Future World 
[. . . ] [B.T., 'Aboda Zarah, 3b] 

Still others believed that the souls of the wicked roam the earth 
until purified of their sin. A belief of Zoroastrian origin adopted by a 


80 Cf. Flavius Josephus, Ant. 18, 1, 3. Cf. also Wars 2: 8, 14; Ant. 13: 10, 6; 20: 9, 
1. For Josephus' own view, cf. Wars 3: 8, 5: "The bodies of all men are indeed mortal 
and are created out of corruptible matter; but the soul is ever immortal and is a portion 
of the divinity that inhabits our bodies.” Josephus appears to be the first jewish expo¬ 
nent of the soul's divinity. 



INTRODUCTION 


43 


number of rabbis was that the soul hovers over the body for three days, 
but leaves it when decomposition sets in (cf. J. T., Moed Katan 3, 5; 
Yebamot 16, 1). 

Afterlife and resurrection are affirmed as dogma in the Mishna 
(2nd century): "Whoever says there is no resurrection [in the Torah], 
has no portion in the world to come.” (Sanhedrin, 10, 1). 81 The expres¬ 
sion "world to come” was taken by some to refer to a place where 
after physical death the righteous enjoy the splendour of the Divine 
Presence; others thought it referred to the present world after the 
raising of the dead. The hyperbolic language characteristic of many 
'aggadot dealing with eschatology precludes an unequivocal answer to 
the question as to whether any of the rabbis conceived of the human 
soul as being literally immortal. 

Some will claim that a certain measure of ambiguity attaches 
equally to the rabbinic pronouncements on resurrection. Yet there is 
a consensus that for many of the rabbis of the Talmud resurrection 
meant the actual recoupling of the souls of righteous people with their 
original shells. It is argued that the prosaic quality of typical 
pronouncements concerning resurrection, such as the one about the 
dead being raised wearing the very shrouds in which they were buried 
(cf. B.T. Ketubot lib), accounts for this consensus. 

The one notable dissenting voice is that of Maimonides (1135-1204), 
who in his misne tora denied bodily resurrection after death, while 
spiritualizing talmudic references to it. 82 According to Maimonides, 
only the acquired intellect (= ? soul) may survive, although not 
individually. He described the bliss vouchsafed (some of?) the righteous 
in the hereafter as completely spiritual and affirmed that the souls of 
the wicked perish with their bodies. Yet by his thirteenth article of faith 
he raised physical resurrection to the rank of dogma. This inconsistency 
was held against him during his lifetime. He was forced to write 
a treatise on resurrection wherein he reiterated his belief in a 
posthumous reunion of the soul and the body, but, by way of 
compromise, restricted it to the Messianic era. Afterwards, the soul 
would again shed its body. True immortality, defined by Maimonides 
as eternal contemplation with a modicum of understanding of the Divine 


81 The bracketed words may be a later interpolation. Cf. Soncino Edition of the 
Babylonian Talmud (London, 1935), Sanhedrin 2, 601-602. 

82 Cf. hilkot tesuba 8, 2 and criticism ad. loc. of R. Abraham b. David (1125-1198) 
who cites — against Maimonides — such Talmudic dicta as the one about the shrouds, 
which in his opinion demand to be taken literally. 



44 


INTRODUCTION 


Essence, would be vouchsafed only those who developed their intellect 
to its highest potential during their lifetime. 83 

Later medieval jewish philosophers insist on individual survival 
of the soul, arguing against the position attributed to Maimonides that 
the acquired intellect becomes one with the active intellect, thereby 
losing its individuality. Joseph Albo (first half of 15th century) upheld 
the notion of unending punishment for the souls of some categories of 
sinners (' iqarim , 4, 38, 6). 

A systematic eschatology emerges in the cabalistic literature of the 
16th century. Retaining its individuality, the soul of the righteous 
person ascends by well-defined stages to the divine emanation, where 
it dwells until resurrection. Afterwards it becomes absorbed in the 
source. The soul of the wicked is purified by temporary burning in hell 
( gehinnom ) or by successive reincarnations. In some cases, it is denied 
both forms of cleansing and is permanently outcast. 84 

In January 1619, a leading jewish intellectual of Venice, Sara Copia 
Sulam, wrote to Baldassare Bonifaccio (1586-1659), a learned priest, 
requesting him to provide her with an explanation of Aristotle's views 
on the immortality of the soul. Sara's circle of jewish and Christian 
intellectuals also included Leon Modena, who dedicated to her that same 
year his Italian play on Esther. In response to Sara's request, Bonifaccio 
published at Venice in June 1621 a discourse on the immortality of the 
soul (Dell’ immortalita dell’anima). It is a 60-page compilation of 
specious syllogisms in favour of the soul's individual immortality, 
replete with references to Aristotle, Avicenna, Averroes et quibusdam 
alii , prodigally sprinkled with quotations from Latin and Italian 
literature. 


83 Cf. Harry Blumberg, "The Problem of Immortality in Avicenna, Maimonides and 
St. Thomas Aquinas,” Harry Austryn Wolf son Jubilee Volume, 1, Jerusalem, 1965, 165-494: 
174-180. 

84 Cf. Alexander Altmann, "Eternality of Punishment: A Theological Controversy 
Within the Amsterdam Rabbinate in the Thirties of the Seventeenth Century,” Proceedings 
of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 40, 1972 (1973), 1-88:30-33. The cabbalistic 
position is not without its resemblance to Origen's theory of gradual but continuous 
purification of souls, including those of the most wicked, culminating in apocatastasis, 
the universal restoration of all to God. Cf. H. A. Wolfson, "Immortality and Resurrec¬ 
tion,” 76-77. 



INTRODUCTION 


45 


Bonifaccio started out with two assumptions: 1) Sara Copia Sulam 
was the first jew ever to doubt immortality; 2) the soul's immortality 
was taught by the Bible: 

You alone among the jews after so many thousands of years refuse to 
believe the infallible document handwritten by God, by throwing doubt 
on the truth of the sacred Scriptures and putting the authority of 
Aristotle before the oracles of the prophets. 85 

In her 12-page reply issued from the press of Antonio Pinelli (who 
had earlier published Bonifaccio's "Dicourse”) during the summer of 
1621, Sara denies ever having expressed or entertained any doubt 
concerning ,? the infallible truth that the human soul is immortal”: 

[. . . ] and infused in the body by God when the organism is rendered 
able to receive it within the womb and this truth is for me as certain, 
infallible and undoubted as I think it is for any jew or Christian [. . . ] 86 

Furthermore: (1) many jews in history have doubted the soul's 
immortality, e.g., the Sadducees, as is evidenced by Matthew 22, 23; 
(2) the only "document handwritten by God” she knows of is the 
Decalogue, wherein there is no mention of the soul's immortality. 87 

In his 6-page counter-reply, published by Antonio Pinelli in August 
1621, Bonifaccio argues that: (1) extinct for so many centuries, the 
Sadducees are not to be reckoned jews; (2) their denial of the soul's 
resurrection does not necessarily imply denial of its immortality; 


85 [. . .] voi sola tra gli Hebrei dopo tante miglaia d’anni negate fede alVinfallibil 
chirografo che scrisse Iddio di Sua mano, revocando hora in dubbio la verita delle sacre 
carte ed anteponendo Vautorita di Aristotile a ghli oracoli de’Profeti.CL DelVimmortalita 
delVanima, 5. (I thank Ms. Miriam Silvera for providing me with a xerox of the copy in 
the Biblioteca Vaticana.) 

86 [.. .] infusa da Dio nel nostro corpo in quel tempo che Vorganizato e reso habile 
nel ventro materno a poterla ricevere: e questa verita e cosi certa, infallibile & indubitata 
appresso di me, come credo sia appresso ogn’Hebreo e Christiano [. . .] Cf. Manifesto di 
Sarra Copia Sulam Hebrea nel quale e da lei riprouata e detestate Vopinione negante 
Vimmortalita delVanima, falsamente attribuitale dal Sig. Baldassare Bonifaccio ["Manifesto 
of Sarra Copia Sulam in which she refutes and disavows the opinion denying the immor¬ 
tality of the soul, falsely attributed to her by Signore Baldassare Bonifaccio”], 5r. (I have 
consulted the copy in the Bibliotheque Nationale.) Howard Adelman ("Success and Failure 
in the Seventeenth Century Ghetto of Venice,” 617) points out that this is a Christian rather 
than a jewish view. 

87 Manifesto, 8v. 



46 


INTRODUCTION 


(3) the "document handwritten by God” refers to the entirety of 
Scripture. 88 

In Bonifaccio's original "discourse,” he had reinforced a quotation 
from Plato by one from Ecclesiastes and another from Genesis, 
throwing in three transliterated Hebrew words: 

Let the dust return to its earth, whence it came, and the spirit [ruah] 
to God, who gave it to it.” [Eccl. 12, 7] This breath of life and this 
reasonable spirit which God breathes into man is called by divine Scrip¬ 
ture nesama. The sensitive soul of the brutes is called nefes and is not 
inspired by God, but produced of the elements, because it is taken from 
the power of matter. But Scripture says: "Let the waters bring forth 
and let the earth produce the soul of beasts [nefes haya] and of fish.” 
[cf. Gn. 1, 20] When Solomon distinguishes between the body of man, 
which is material, and the spirit, he calls it ruah, a word which in all 
of Scripture always signifies incorporeal substance and never was the 
soul of some brute animal called ruah. But ruah is applied to the human, 
the angelic and the divine mind. 89 

In her reply, Sara mocked Bonifaccio for not knowing Hebrew and 
relying on others who provided him with false information. She claimed 
that ruah in Scripture "only means air, wind and the breath we 
breathe.” 90 In his rebuttal Bonifaccio charges that it is Sara who 
relies on others, since he recognized in her first letter to him, as well 
as in her reply to his "discourse,” the stamp of her "champion,” the 
famous rabbi: 

[. . . ] whom I have always honoured in my writings and whose talent 
I have much praised, whose interests I have promoted and, together 
with those who are closest to me, whose fortunes I have raised up, 


88 Cf. Risposta al manifesto della Signora Sara Copia del Signor Baldassare 
Bonifaccio, 3v. (I thank Ms. Miriam Silvera for providing me with a xerox of the copy 
in the Biblioteca Vaticana.) 

89 "Ritorni [...] la poluere alia sua terra di donde venne e ritorni lo spirito a Dio 
che lo diede ”. Quello spiracolo di vita e quelVanimo ragionevole che infuse Iddio 
nell’huomo, la divina Scrittura lo chiama NESCIAMAH. L’anima sensitiva de’bruti e 
chiamata NEPHES, e non e spirata da Dio, ma prodotta dagli elementi; perche si cava 
dalla potenza della materia. Perd dice la Scrittura:"Producano le acque e produca la terra 
Vanima (NEPHES) delle fiere e de’pesci ”. E quando Salomone dal corpo dell’huomo, che 
e materiale, distingue lo spirito, lo chiama RVACH, voce che in tutta la Scrittura significa 
sempre sostanza incorporea, ne mai fu chiamata RVACH Vanima d’alcun bruto animale. 
Ma RVACH sono dette la mente humana, Vangelica e la Divina. Cf. DelVimmortalita 
delVanima, 7. 

90 Cf. Manifesto, 9. 



INTRODUCTION 


47 


whereas he [. . .] rewards me with acrid invective. I say "he” and not 
"you,” for I recognize his characteristic idioms, the conceits which 
always flow from his mouth [. . . ] 91 

The bitter critic is none other, of course, than Leon Modena. As to 
ruah , Bonifaccio invokes Eccl. 3, 21 and 21, 7; Zech. 12, 1 and 13, 2; 
Is. 31, 3 and 57, 16; Ezek. 2, 2; Nm. 11, 25 and Gn. 1, 2 to prove his inter¬ 
pretation, which, he writes, he gleaned from books rather than from 
"great teachers” such as those with whom Sara is blessed. 92 

One can hardly fail to discern in this 1621 exchange between a 
catholic priest and a jewess of Venice a foreshadowing of the 1623-1624 
agon between our two protagonists. Yet by negating outright the 
doctrine of the soul's immortality, Uriel da Costa's "Examination of 
Pharisaic Traditions” of 1624 marks something of a watershed. It was 
certainly the first time a jew writing in a modern European language 
dared to question the tenets of jewish and Christian orthodoxy (48 years 
later, Spinoza will prudently stick to Latin). 

Furthermore, da Costa, a seasoned latinist and former student of 
Canon Law, valiantly attempts to turn his back on the classic authors 
( e.g ., Aristotle along with his medieval moslem and jewish commen¬ 
tators, Plato, Cicero, Lucretius, Pliny the Elder), the Christian sources 
(e.g., the New Testament, the Church Fathers, Aquinas), the rabbinic 
authorities (e.g., Mishna, Talmud, Aggadah). Except for a brief poem 
by Camoes, a stanza from a Spanish romance and an unnamed pagan 
philosopher, only the jewish Bible is appealed to. 93 Where Pomponazzi 
made faith in the soul's immortality independent of reason, da Costa, 
by equating reason with "authentic Scripture” (i.e., shorn of all 
Pharisaic accretions) and eliminating appeals to Greek philosophy, shat¬ 
tered faith in an afterlife. His book would have been anathema to the 
Dutch Reformed Church, whose belief in eternal rewards and, most 
emphatically, eternal punishments, claimed to be sustained exclusively 
by the "clear teachings of the Bible.” 94 


91 [...] Io con gli scritti honorai sempre questo vostro campione e lodai molto 
Vingegno suo;promossi anco gVinteressi ed insieme co’miei piu congiunti sollevai la fortuna. 
Hora egli[...]mi ricompensa con un\acerba invettiua. Egli, dico, e non voi:perche riconosco 
gli idiotismi del suo linguaggio e gli stessi concetti ch’egli ha sempre in hocca [...]. 
Cf. Risposta al manifesto, 2v. 

92 Ibid., 3v. 

93 Da Costa's rejection of philosophical arguments is discussed by Diogo Pires 
Aurelio, "Uriel da Costa: o discurso da vitima,” Analise, 2-3, 1, 1985, 5-33: 17-22. 

94 Cf. Jean Calvin, Psychopannychia [ist edition, 1545]. Calvin thought that those 
who had the Bible did not need pagan or Christian philosophers to prove the soul's immor- 



48 


INTRODUCTION 


7. The Aftermath 


Uriel's book was burnt in 1624, shortly after it issued from the 
press, but its denial of the soul's immortality echoed on through the 
ensuing decades. Until Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670), 
da Costa's book — which partially survived through the citations in 
Dr. da Silva's refutation — was the most radical attack on officially 
accepted doctrine to have appeared in the Amsterdam Sephardic 
community. No less than five pieces affirming the soul's post-mortem 
survival, ultimate resurrection and immortality flowed from the pens 
of the Amsterdam rabbinate between 1624 and 1640. 

The first of these is the unpublished Hebrew (?) "Treatise on the 
immortality and eternality of the rational soul” by hakam Saul Levi 
Mortera (1596P-1660). Though long since lost, it has recently been 
partially reconstructed by Dr. M. Saperstein from precise references 
to its contents in Mortera's published and unpublished sermons. It will 
be remembered that in a session with da Costa in 1623, Mortera had 
unsuccessfully attempted to convince him of "the truth.” Thanks to 
Mortera's dating of his sermons, Saperstein has established that 
Mortera's treatise on the soul was completed in 1624, the very year da 
Costa's "Examination of Pharisaic Traditions” came off the press to 
be consigned to the flames (at the instigation of hakam Mortera?). No 
doubt due to the anathema, da Costa's name is omitted from Mortera's 
writings. Yet, Marc Saperstein has pointed to a number of direct connec¬ 
tions between Mortera's lost treatise and the da Costa-da Silva polemic, 
e.g., in Mortera's discussion of the binding of Isaac. 95 

In or around 1635 hakam Mortera, born in Venice of Italian 
Ashkenazic stock, preached a sermon in the Bet Ya c aqob congrega¬ 
tion, reminding his flock of the Talmudic dictum (Rosh Hashanah 17a) 
that apostates are condemned to hell for all eternity. The result was 
an outburst of indignation on the part of young people recently arrived 
from Portugal. Implying the damnation of all their relatives who died 
or would die outside the fold, this doctrine seemed excessively harsh 


tality. Many of the Scriptural proof-texts used by Calvin to demonstrate immortality are 
the very ones da Costa invokes for his opposite purpose. Cf. Leo Strauss, Spinoza's Critique 
of Religion, New York, 1965, 310. 

95 Cf. da Silva's chap 13 and (1624).II.12. Cf. Marc Saperstein, "Saul Levi Morteira's 
Treatise on the Immortality of the Soul,” Studia Rosenthaliana, 25, 2, 1991, 131-148. 



INTRODUCTION 


49 


and, from the perspective of their New Christian background, tainted 
with Christian dogma. They demanded of the parnassim an injunction 
forbidding Mortera to give further utterance to it. They found a cham¬ 
pion in Mortera's Portuguese-born colleague hakam Isaac Aboab da 
Fonseca (1605-1693) of the Neve Salom Congregation, who, on the basis 
of late cabalistic writings, argued that sinning descendents of jews, be 
they jews or not, are exempt from eternal damnation. Instead, their 
souls go through a prolonged process of purification by means of 
successive transmigrations. In a report to the rabbinical authorities 
of Venice, Mortera displayed an impressive array of sources to support 
the orthodoxy of his views on hell, calling the opposing opinions 
"crooked and corrupt innovations” liable to mitigate the trepidation 
which prompted some Portuguese New Christians — influenced by 
threats of eternal punishment emanating from Amsterdam — to leave 
Portugal. This was the occasion for the second literary effort on the 
subject, Aboab's Hebrew pamphlet entitled nismat hayim ("The Breath 
of Life”). 96 

Hakam Menasseh ben Israel's Resurrection de los muertos 
"Wherein the Immortality of the Soul [. . .] is proven against the 
Sadducees,” 97 was published at Amsterdam in 1636, followed the 
same year by a Latin translation. Like all of Menasseh's treatises, it 
is a laborious compilation: 187 pages in small print of remarks on the 
subject at hand, culled from dozens of ancient and modern authorities, 
characteristically including Christians ( e.g., Pomponazzi). Uriel da 
Costa's three chapters are cited on more than one occasion, but not his 
name. Anathema by association, so it would seem, is the otherwise 
respectable da Silva: his treatise of 1623 which vehicled da Costa's 
words is also passed over in silence. When, for instance, Menasseh 
attributes to "the Sadducees” the following proposition (chap. 7, p. 25): 

[. . . ] el alma del hombre es el espirito de vida con que vive, el qual esta 
en la sangre, y con este vive y haze sus acciones, y no ay otre diferencia 
entre el alma del hombre a la del bruto que ser la del hombre rational, 
y la del bruto inracional, empero en el nascer, vivir y morir en todo son 
yguales [. . .] 


96 Both Mortera's report and Aboab's pamphlet were published for the first time 
by Alexander Altmann, prefaced by an analysis. Cf. art . cit. supra, n. 84. 

97 De la Resurrection de los muertos Libros III en los quales contra los Zaduceos 
se prueva laimmortalidad del alma y resurrection de los muertos [...] obra de las divinas 
letras y antigos sabios colegida. 



50 


INTRODUCTION 


the resemblance to da Costa's words ([1624].2.1) (or da Silva's citation 
of them in his chap. 8): 

[...] Alma do homem, pois, dizemos que e, e se chama o espirito da 
vida com que vive, o qual esta no sangue, e com este espi'to vive o homem, 
faz suas obras [...]£ nao ha outra diferenga entre a alma do bruto e 
a [alma] do homem que ser a do homem racional e a do bruto carecer 
de razdo. No demais, nascer, viver e morrer, por tudo sao iguais [.. .] 

is too close for coincidence. 

Probably around 1639, when he translated Modena's magen ve-sina 
into Portuguese, hakam Mose Refael de Aguilar (? - 1679) wrote in that 
language a brief "Treatise on the immortality of the soul” which awaited 
publication until 1934. 98 It consists of 37 graceless scholastic 
syllogisms, consecutively numbered and dryly strung together. 

Among the many contemporaneous works treating of the immor¬ 
tality of the soul, it seems that Uriel da Costa's is the only one to deny 
it outright. How ironic that his spirit should resurface from oblivion 
as it does in the ensuing pages. 


98 Cf. M. de Jong, "O Tratado da Immortalidade da Alma' de Moses Rephael de 
Aguilar,” Biblos, 10, 1934, 488-499; A Martins, "Um inedito [sic] Judaico-Portugues de 
Amsterdam, Tratado da Imortalidade da Alma',” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 5, 1950, 
201 - 220 . 



51 


E X A M E 

Das tradicoes Phari- 

leas conferidas com a lei 
elcrita 

Tor 

URIEL JURISTA HEBREO, 
Com repofta a hum 

SEMVEL DA SILVA 
que faz officio de medico, feu 
fal/o calumniador. 



AMSTERDAM, 

Em cafa de Paulo a Rrtpejleyn anno da 

critfao do Mftndo s 3 * 4 • 


52 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 




'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


53 



Ao Leitor. 

/ Z / A. Icbofuak, e Caleb Nutu. 
aopovo que naoouvtfidavoz. 14* 
fa fa e datiofd daquclles que 
falando contra Decs Hot a* 
talhavao , t impcdiaa feu 
bem- } mas como os coracoes 
cjlavao affetcoados, eprezos 
ia. dtfaUde/iforitsacatp nao 
J <1 nao for ao ottvidos , mas efit'verao 4 ponto de fer 
aptdtt2adbi\fe a gloria do S*bt Mo afarecerd logo 
p/iralivralv- comepei eua abrir a hoc*, e Merer 
falar fella verdade fa lei>eftavao os toracoes tnha - 
btlitados para foportar : nao fo nao fat ouwido , mas 
fe Deos nao tirara ao povo as pedras da mao., e the 
negara o poder de ml gar , achara matt as pedras fi¬ 
bre mim. continuei a quererfalar tomei traballjo, 
fibre cfcrevcr , ecom for ca quiz mostrar aver da - 
de do cpue dizja. enjinoame o tempo que todo o cjue 
ntslo gaclaffe firia perdido , e que nao era conve - 
mente perfeverar cm querer dar bom confilho a 
quern o nao queria ouvir > e fibre ifo paqava mal. 
recolhi os efcritos , e nao os quiz, publicar. Sahic 
nefle meio tempo hum medico com hum tratado chco 
de calumnia, que intitulou da immortalidade da 
alitM, e ajfi por elle nao fquar detodofim algua re - 
pojla ao muito quo merepe , como para mo sir or a 
fiubjlantia do aue di<[o aos que nao tern inteira no- 
ti pia t e com ifo defiiiar afalfa voz de ho mens maos 


A 2 


que 



54 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


* 

<J uecalttmniando ipterem deftmder fua injuft a cau - 
fit, me parefco ne^ejfariofazer hum breve com - 
pendtoxte dguas coujfas, e polo diatOe aos aue qm- 
x.erem fir lutzes, para conform*die, affiiulga* 
rem , e new corf or me ao quo da hoc a apaixonada, t 
inimrga repeberem. efle he o intento, e como a ten* 
caoheabreviar vamos afubslanpia. 


Os lugares allegados fe notaoa 
margem. o primeiro numero fi- 
nala o capitulo, o fegundooverfb. 


CAP. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


5 

CAP. J. 

Propoficao. 

Tradhjao, que fe chama 
leide boca» nadhe ver- 
dadeira tradi^ao , nem 
teve prin^ipio com a lei. 

Provafe primeiro: a 
tradi^o, quefe chama 
lei de boca, hecontraria 
i lei efcrita, como pare- 
^era pellos cafos adiante referidos: dous con* 
trarios nao podera eftaj fem repugnan^ia, 
nem fepode darverdadeem ambos, logo a 
tradi^ao repngnante a lei be ne^eflario quc 
feia falfa pois a lei he verdadeira. 

2. Daleinadconftaque outra declara^ad 
fe deffe a ella mais que a quella que namefma 
lei fe efcreveo: fe outra decla^ao fe dera> two 
era poflivel nao fe fazer della men^ao eni al- 
gua parte da lei: logo outradeclara^ad nao fe 
deu. 

3. Sea lei nao podfera fercntendida fem 
a declara^ao que nquou deboca, feguirfeia: 
que a lei era imperfeita, eaaofe deixavaen- 
tender: na lei tal defeito fe nao ha de por, e 
della mefma he ne9efIario que faia fua decla- 
racad, e nad q fiquafTe cometida a metnoria, 

A 5 ecabe- 



56 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


6 Exame 

e cabe$a alhea;lpgo a boa declaration! que fc 
tirar da lei bafta para entender a lei. 

4* Ao Rei feeneomendaque-treflade oli- 
17.18. vro da lei,'e fedirdle para guardar, e fazer to- 
das a(jpalavras,e eftatutos alii e(critos,e naom 
Hie manda perguncar ao depofitario da lei dA 
bocarlogoa li^aom da lei be que olia de eufi- 
nar,enaom a biftoria da cabe^a. 

j. Mofeh efcfevco na lei tod* a declare- 
caomque teve pamdar: provave, porque de- 
fpois de eftar com o Senhor tm monte Sinai 
os corenta dias em que dize re^ebeo a decla- 
Nnm. ra§aom de boca, perguntou ao mefmo Sefiof 
o que avia de fazer no ca(o da que lie homera 
N*m. que Cortou no monte lenha ema dia do Sab* 
Vm ' jl ® a< fo,e outras vezes perguntou fobreas filbat 
de jSelophcbad.affi naom rinhaMoleb re9ebi- 
do outra declara^aom mars que a tinha efcri- 
ta como eftes cafoseoutros publicaom. Ema 
faffafemdo larden,em aterra at Mo ah quiz. Mo- 
1,5 ' feh atclarar eBa let dizjendo &c: o que mefmo 
declares, ifb mefmo efcreveo,e vai feguindo. 

6 - A dedara^amdalei, outradi^am nam 
foi eferita quando a lei fe efcreveo : e afE era 
ne^effarioeferevera declara^am (ema quala 
lei fe mam podia entender , como efcrevera 
mefma lei, que (em declara^am nam podia fer 
entendida,ou (eria itmtila eicritura da lei:lo* 
go a tradi^am que nam foi eferita quAdo a lei 
fc efcreveo nam tere prin9ipio com a lei. 

7. Sepro- 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


57 


DMtraeticocs'. 7 

y. Sc prdva a propofi^am principal, por- 
que content eta fnmpoffibUidadepoder pura- 
mente confervarfe a declara^am tfa lei,elcrita 
cm taocos cademos do talfflud,e paffarde bo- 
caemboca quafi dous mil annos defpois da 
data della ate o tempo que fe acabou o tal- 
mud,que fe chamou talmud Babilonico. 

8* Por que no tempo dosiuizesopovofe 
feapartou dodireito caminho , ecada bum, 
como diz o texto,o bom em feus o lhos fazia: 
e no tempo dos Reis fe perdeo o livro da lei, 
que como coufa nova, e efque^ida feleo nas 
orelhas do povo, e entam fe celebrou a Paf> 
choa dos as mos fendo coufa tarn vulgar,e tri- 
lhada:affifobreimpofEvel era, poder confer- 
varfe a declara^am daquella lei, que tam mal 
fe guardava,ecuia memoria nam avia. 

9, Por que fe agora aconte^efle perderfe 
o talmud,feria impofsivel tomarfe a elcrever £ 
declara^am da lei que nelle fe conte, com to- 
do o eftudo que agora ha no mefmo talmud, 
com que cada dia fe refrefca a memoria,o que 
nam era antes de ellefer eferito: afsimuito 
menos poderia algum daquelles homens con- 
fervar inteiramente na memoria a declara^am 
da lei que avia ouvido para fazer boa, e per- 
feita entrega ao que feguifTe defpois delle. 

10. Por que fe fora verdaaeiro o que fe 
diz.que a declara^am da lei re^ebida com ella 
em moote Sinai fiquou de cabe^a para fe coti- 

A 4* nuar 



58 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


t txm* 

joist no* vindouros de boca emboca, fefe- 
gairiA tram abfurdo intoleravel cm defprezo 
date que fedevei lei efcrita ; por que fe fe-J 
gukiaque a cada ham daquelles homens quo 
tora64epofitarios dalei de boca ledaria> e 
devia dar tmto credito como fe deu ao met. 


mo Mofeh aprovado, e iuftificado com tefte- 
munho de Deos vivo ante hnm povo inteiro, 
e cada bum delies por fi em cada idade fiqua- 
va fendo novo Iegiflador. e he tao grande ab- 
furdo efte, tao ifltoleravel, e fora de caminho 
que lo baftava para confundir, e fazer enver- 
gonbar os autbores-, e defenfores defte mao 


erro, e cremja. 

11. Se prova por que aquelles por quern 
foi efta declara^ao efcrita , fe alevantarao 
huns empos outros em diferentes tempos, e 
os derradeiros acref^enterao o que lhes pa- 
rc$eo faltou aos priraeiros; no que fe conven- 
$e nao fer tradi^ho aquillo que efcreverao, 
por que fe tradi^ao fora, devia tela o primei^ 
ro, e eftar primeiro nelle, e nao podia paflar 
ao fegundo fe nao por elle* efcreveo pois ca¬ 
da bumfbbre adeclara^ao dalei aquillo que 
Ihe para^eo, e quiz efcrever. 

12. Se prova pella coutrad^ao que ouve 
entre os mefmos meftres, efabios no tempo 
em que comegarao os bandos , e difcordias 
fobre quererem alguns introduzirefta leide 
boca, e data por dedara^ao da lei efcrita, 

vendo 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


59 


Ddttradtms* p 

veado que doutra maneira na6 podikaemen* 
dor a lei naquella parte dos iuizos que quizo- 
rad emendar por lbes para^erem duros, e eru 
teddendo que tambem lbes vinha mais a con* 
topara dominar, e logeitar o povo a fuas or- 
dens, e regimentos, e aconte^eo defta manei* 
rafegundofua mefmarela^ao. Efdras entre- 
gou a lei de boca a Simeao o iufto lacerdote 
grande: delle re^ebeo Antigono feu difcipuio 
com feus companheiros, dos quais forao Sa* 
dok, eBethus, c^be^as dos hcreges, coroo 
elleslheschamad* Moftrafe pois porefta re- 
la^ao, que efte Antigono com alguns mais 
quizerao novamente introduzirefta inven^ad 
de lei de boca,e logo lbes forao partes Sadok, 
e Bethus feus contemporaneos, e de entao fe 
continuou a divifao, leguindo a eftes a parte 
do povo mais prin^pal, entendida, e nobre, 
potto que muidefigual em nutnero, e aos ou- 
tros o mais comum , e geral Ievados de do^u- 
ras que em fuas prega^oens mixturavam, im* 
mortalidade da alma brandura nos iuizos, a 
que o comum dos homens fa^ilmente fe in* 
clina, por fer a immortalidade bem que fe de* 
feia, e a natureza inclinar mais a mifericordia, 
e piadade que ao rigor da iuftfea. As roefmas 
contradi^oes fe acha que ouve defpois em di* 
fcrentes tempos, por que, como elles dizem, 
Semaia, e Abtalion entregarao a lei de boca 
&Hillcl, e Samai: eftes tiverao infinito nume* 

Ay ro dc 



60 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


SO Exam 

«o de dif^ipolos, e em feu tempo crel^cram 
os^ifmas, ealeifoifeitacocnoduasleis. Da 
quivenaacharfecada paflo nos livros dotal- 
mod, acafadeHiUeldizaffi, eacafadeSa- 
tnaidizafli, cada hum o contrario do que o 
outro diz. Mas nem efta contrariedade he de 
algum momento ante os anthores, e defenfo- 
resdefteerro, pois namduvidamdizer ,eeA 
crever quequando dons Rabbinos contende- 
rementrefi, ehumdizerdiferentedo qneo 
Outro diz»nioguem tem licenca para contra- 
dizera algum delies, porquc cada bumfoube 
porqueauiaviadefalar # eaJfioreccbco per 
tradiiyam de Mofeh»e as palavtas de hurn»e de 
outro fampalavras de Deos vivo. De maneira 

f ue XCofca Jalou por duas bocas > c tambem 
>eos vivo fala contrariedades* 

13. Se prova por que na ordemdas entre¬ 
es ic acha mentira, e falfidade» por que di- 
zeoa:Iehofuah entregou a Pinchas, Pinchas a 
Heli, e he falfo dizer que Pinchas entregou a 
Heli, por que Heli nam fuc^edo a Pinchas,an¬ 
tes lhe fuc^edeo feu Hiho Abifuah, a Abifuah 
Bucchi, a Bucchi Huzzi como confta dolivro 
primeiro das palavras dos dias : C afE he ver- 
verdadciro o teftemunho de Iofepho no livro 
S'.das antiguidades cap. iz. em quato diz que 
a Pinchas fuc^edeo Abiezer (efte he Abifuah 
mudado o vocabulo) a Abiezer Bozi: a Bozi 
Ozi:a OziHeli. afsi que entre Heli,e Pinchas 

ouve 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


DASttddicHU Sf 

onve tres que fizeram officio dc Sigerdot?** 
por onde he falio dizer qae Pinches enrregov 
a HeIi,o qaal nam vio,nera conbe^eo. Maul- 
lade efte conto a outro fabulolo,que content 
que Pinchas viveo doze generu^oifs, quefe 
contain ate o tempo de EEaho, e Eliahu era 
Pinchas,o qaal por ventura aodiante metere- 
mos para conhrma9am defte fbndamento,po- 
ftoqoeacaufabemais djgnaderifoque dele 
por esqueftam. 

14. Por que ie a rradi^am era ne^efifariak 
como dizem,para que a lei tiveffe £erra declA- 
ra^aro, e nam fiquafTe difpofta a poder ier mal 
entendida, dando cada hum ieu pare^er; tarn- 
bem era nc^eilario que efta tradi^am fofle ge- 
ral em todos os cafos:Mas eis que ifto affi nad 
he,e iiquou lugar a diferentes opinioes, e di£- 
putas em cafos mais duvidofos doqueiama- 
quelles que a tradi£am mal declara: logo mal 
ie oppoem efte aebaque, ebem ie moftra a 
teii^am de quem com elle fequer aiudar : ou 
diremos que as tradi^oes foram mancas,e cur- 
tas naquiuo que mais neijefiidade tiuha de fet 
declarado. 

Ultimo ie prova pella lei,a qua! da por cau* 
fade todos os males, elongos caftigos a re- 
prova^am, e quebrantamento do concerto 
eicrito com continua^am, e perieveranfi* 
nefte defvio comolarga, eclaramente femof* 
tra no capitulo 2 6» do Levitico por todia^ 

epar* 



62 


’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


ta Sxame 

e ptrticu armente no verfo. Tor quanto, tper 
quanta em mem imm reprovarao, e mem decretot 
abmimu fox,alma, e para welfarem os males, 
erirem os bens he ne^eflario aver fatisfa^ao, 
e emends naquella parte em que a lei eft 4 of- 
&***■ fendida como fe le: Seobedeferes d vox. do Snor 
|o.io. j) ns teugmerdandofens prefcitos , e fern ejhztutos 
os efcritos no Uvro deftalei. os efcritos no livro 
da lei diz, e nam os efcritos no talmudcom 
o mais que alii fegue : For que oprefetroefleque 
eu te encomendo hole nam efcondido de ti , &c, 
A mefmaaccufa^am fazem os profetas, e fe 
queixam do concerto baldado, mudan^a dos 
itiizos, e eftatutos, efcritura falfa feita pellos 
fabios, guarda de mandamentos de bomens, 
tom. <e nao dos mandamentos divinos. Comodirets 
^ fabios nos, e a lei do Snor com nofco? de verdade em 
vao efcreveo a pena , falfidade do efcrivam . for am 
envergonhados os Sabios,forao que brant ados, for ae 
dnlacados : eu em a palavra do Snor reprovaram, 
Sr fibedoria, que a elles ? E no cap. 31. diz o mef- 
mo profeta que por que Ifrael baldou o con. 
certo elcrito em papel, faria o Snor com elle 
ootroefcrito nocoracam para nam opoder 
baldarcotnfalladoutrina, Elechezcbel diz: 
c* £ made a me us iuiz.os em impiedade mate que as 
* gtmet, e mens eslatutos mats que aHerras qne eflao 

em fituarredcres . E fam infinitos os lugares 
que fe achao em confirma^ao defta verdade 
abertos a quern quizcr velos fe he que nara 

tern 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


63 


DOt tr*dtCOCS. 

tern tfevoa nos olhos. 

Temos poftos os fundamentos que baftao 
paraprovar a propofi^ao que tomamos, fe a-> 
gora poferamos as refpoftas dos contraries, 
e os fandamentos ezn que elles fe fundam, e 
Ibes fefponderamos, real^ara muito mats s> 
yerdade que pofemos; mas como nao fe poda 
tn^ter em quatro folhas de papel oque eftava 
eicritoem fincoenta, e o propofrto he ia ou- 
tro, dando demaoatudo’, vatnos fomente a 
feguir os cafos com que fe ptovao primeiro, 
eprincipal fundamemode noflapropoli^afo 


C*f»2. Sobrc 0 cafo da lei comofe deve execu¬ 
tor a petto m que der macula an fcucom- 
panhctro* 

N O cap.24. doLeviticofe ledeftama* 
neira. E varam quando der macula emfeu 
proximo. conform* ao que fez. afji ft far* a die* 
quebrodura for quebrodura, oltxf for olho , denft 
for dent*% dottferme a macula qneder em hemem 
aflifitd dado nette. Entra a tradigao na decla- 
raodefte cafo, -ediz queo queatal macula 
der, naom ha de fer apenado em qutra igoai^ 
mas fomente multado em algua pena dedii- 
nheito. proyamos a falfidade da tradiganw 
1 • -‘Petto lugardalei referido expreflb,e 
claro , que nam regebe, nem pode regeber 
outra declaragam , e fer ievado a pern de di«- 

nheiro 



64 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


*4 Sxame 

nheiro fe bem, e verdadeiramente fe quizef 
conftruir,e entender. Conforme a macula, cjue der 
tmfeu companbeiro , afji feta dado uelle. Pergun- 
tamos que be o que ha de fer dado? outra ma¬ 
cula : por que macula be q que fiqua atras 
que die deu,e alii ferefereo que fegue: afjit 
/era dado nelie t a mefma macula fera dado nel- 
fe. Maisfodeve notar a palavra, nelie, que 
ioclueye involve a mefma pefba de delinqueu- 
te, e nelie* e nam em fazenda fua raanda exe- 
cntar o caftigo. pafla a lei niais adiante*enam 
cootente com tudo o que avia dito aiunsa pa¬ 
ra mais declararfe, e manifeftar fua ten^am 
exemplos com que a coufa finala: olhopor olho* 
dentepor dente , E nam fiquavam os exemplos 
▼erdadeiros fe por hum olho fe aviam dedar 
dez, ou vinte cruzados, nem a lei fez eftima- 
^amdosolhos. Confirmafe a difpofi$am da 
lei nefte lugar por outro cafoda mefmaieiio- 
bre o que teftemunhou falfameote contra ra- 
ram,e manda a lei quefa^ain ao falfario o daef- 
mo quccuidou fazar afeu irmaom: alma por 
alma,olho por olho. E fe ouyefiemosde djZer 
que o mal que o falfario quiz dar fecompenfa- 
#aa comdtrtbeiro, taBem a morte fe compenfa- 
Jofocom dinlieiro; o que nemos contrariosdi- 
zem 5 antes confeffam q o falfario ha de mor- 
ver. pois fe pella morte que com 0 teftemu- 
nho quiz dar ha de morrer, tamben nps ou- 
tros cafos pagara com pena corporal igualao 

dano, 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Dot trtteficoes. tjf 

<fano,conforme a lei pede a paga, e nam fatis- 
fui com dinheiro* 

». Quando do does entre O' baralharam, txti< 
t bum ferio ao outro fern macula, difpoem a **• 
lei que o delinquente page os gaftos da cura, e 

K rda do tempo queo doente deixon de tra* 
lhar. E fe a lei quizera no cafo de macula 
contentarfecompena de dinheiro, falarada 
mefma maneira que falou ne caio afima, e i. 
curadadoen^a, e^efla^am do trabalbo que 
aUi mandava pagar, aiuntara mais^erta pena 
tambem de dinheiro, e pedira dez, ourinte 
cruzados por hum olbo, on dente. Mas eis 
qaealeiaffi nam falou, etude remeteo ao-> 
loo$,«dentes, penatotalmentecorporal, e 
que nada tem de dinheiro, loop a pena de di~ 
toheirobemui dCfigaal, e difeonrorme para 
iatisfazer vi^io corporal dado na pefoa, e to* 
talmente alhea’day palarras, e mente da lei, 
que a tal pena uam pedio. 

Todas as vezes que a lei quiz multar em 
pena de dinheiro, ou9ena, bn cometidad 
Tontade da parte, logo fez menftm da tal pe* 
na, como fe ye pot todos os cafos nella eipa* 
lhados: no cafo prefente nenhuma memoria 
fezde pena tal, maspaffou adiante, logoned 
a nam deyemos fitter. 


4 Oque 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


|g Sxamt 

- 4 Oque tirar hum olho « oa dente no ilea 
efcravo be obrigado a lhe daf liberdade pelk> 
tal olho, ou dence: A liberdade val mais do 
atte val a pefia de dtnheiro em que bum pode 
fer condenado por twar bom dente a oucro li-i 
we : logo a pena de dtnheiro ttaftt he b$£* 
tante {atisfi^ao entrelivres para pagaj oibe* 
ou dente tirado, pois o namihe entre o ferroj 
e leu ihor. 

n jEnam val paca nada direr queo {norhe 
mandado dar liberdade ao ftrvo pella digsbu? 
manidade, e por que elle Jtatm he Capaa de 
rc^eber dktHeiro. por qua bam pella tfcfi 
humanidade, mas pella deaformidade he q 
S uor mandado darliberdade (manfabhaAivr* 
pelb fat olho /que altds ihe <fera tantb a^oute 
que o ponba arififo de tnorfer (pal fez)enem 
por ifo lhe dar a liberd&k ffendomulcomai 
km deshumanidade do que he a^ercar <fe Ihd 
tirir ham dente com hue puahadfc, Equanda 
bem fofle pella deshiiraaoidade; (que nam 
he ) nada ata efta repofta, tobre que nam ga- 
ftarcmos maisxempo. A ourra reran? tam- 
feeinnam prefta, eofervorhe capaz dcre^e* 
beer idinheira, evfar dellc como qu tei&s fe o 
«Suot lhe foradeyedocde dtnbeiro, 

Arezam , eigualdac^ejoatnral eftataoi 
ftrando qu£.anaga ha de fer igoal comadivi* 
da, ou nam (eria a pagajnfia» porqufcajufti* 
^afefundaem igualdade; Oque tirou hum 

olho 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


67 


Dm trddicots, if 

olbo a feu companheiro be devedordeoutro 
olho»e natn tern igual eftimapam com que pa- 

f e, nem a lei, ou rezam eftimou a valia dos o- 
10s : logo com putro olho que he a valia que 
le acha igual,ha de fer a paga feita,como a vi- 
da fe ha de pagar com outra vida, e nara ha e- 
ftiraapam das vidas. 

6 » A lei diviua he tarn inteira,jufta,e direi- 
ta que nam fe dard aleu cafo em que pepa me* 
nos fatisfapam daquella que for devida, antes 
fe daram muitos em que caftiga alem daquillo 
em que fe peccou,para que o que crelpefique 
em lugar de pena do delido. Exemplo no que 
furtou hum bofque fera condenado em pinco, 
e outros muitos cafos,em que exerpede em a- 
bominapam do crime, e peccado, pedindo a 
vida com fogo, e pedras: pois como efte feia o 
caminho da lei conftante,e firme,mal podia o 
que tirou hum olho a feu companheiro, vipio 
perpetuo, pagar femelhante dano com dinhei- 
ro, tendooucro olho com que pagar, pena 
nam proporpionada ao tal dano, que fendo 
puramece corporal,nam tern paga mais igoal. 

7. A tenpam da lei,e feusjuizos nam 16 foi 
caftigar os crimes com igoaldade,mas com ef- 
fe caftigo pofto diante defviar os homens del- 
les, e afli confervara Republica papifica, e le- 
gurade males. Eftefim nam fe podia feguir 
quado o criminofb que cortou mebro a leu co 
panhciro,ouyeUe de pagar efte dano com per- 

B ta pena 



68 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


iS 


Examt 


ta pena de dinheiro, e nosolhosdequafquer 
vingativo feria coufa de rifo a tal pena para 
deixar de fazer fua ma vontade: logo ontra he 
neseffario que fofle a pena, eoutraheaquea 
lei pos,e devia por 

8* A mother que pegou na parte do bo* 
mem por livrar a feu marido do mais podero* 
fb, tern pena de mad cortada fern refpeito al- 

f ura a piadade 5 e nc^effidade. Muito maior 
ano traz fem capaalguraa para poder efcu- 
farfe cortar hum homem a maoraaooutro: 
logo o iuizo da lei nefte cafo nam tinha re- 
zam para fer mais braudo que no outro, e co- 
teutarfe com a leve pena de dinheiro. Afsi fi- 
qua por tudo a rezam da lei em fua for^a con¬ 
tra a falfidade da tradi^am. 

Nam dizemos que fe bum luitou com ou¬ 
tro, e dando com elle no chaom lbe defmetio 
hum oflo,ou lbe fez huma corcova nas coftas, 
lhe hao de fazer outra corcova, por que averd 
mifter muito eftudo para acquirir efta f^ien- 
$ia de fazer corcovados, tratamos de olho, 
dente. mad,dedo corrado.e em diferentes ca- 


JExod- 

ai.ix 


fos fe refponderd diferentemente. 

Cap.j. Sobre o iniz.o do homem que mat ox ou¬ 
tro por vontade. 


O que fair varum , e mar a, morrer mare * 
ra, Eo que nao armou treipao, Mas Deoso 
fez. encontrar em fua mao , e porci ati lugar para 
ottdefugira, e quando fe enfobtrbepa varao contra 

ft* 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


69 


Das tradiepcs. 19 

fat companheiro.para matar a elk cm aBsifsa 4 de 
com 0 men altar to mar as a die paw morrer• Em 
declara^am defla leidiz a tradicam que o qua 
matar homem por vdntade Ram ha de mottec 
falvo em cafo que.quando butalhava > or lida~ 
vacom omorto ,ouvequem felheposdiante 
lembrandolhe, e requerendolhe que naiamM 
tafle:tradi§ammais do que,fe pode dizer ini- 
miga da paz ,« quietasam publica, fomenta- 
dora, e mai de codas os males. 

Confbrme a difpofi^ao da lei Divina,.e con- 
forme a lei natural,e boa rezam,nam fomertce 
£e moftra fer foobo efta folenidade que os 1 in- 
ventores pediram para fiquar cplpado o mata¬ 
dor, mas mda fiqua muito para examinar em 
que termos fe aia de con^eder poder matar 
em defeza do inimigo, e como fe aia de dar ao 
matador livramento, por que a lei nam refer- 
vou cafb algum em que efcufafle de morte ao 
que matou falvo no homi^idio cafual, quea- 
conte^e fem vontade da pefba: e he o oomi- 
$idio coufa mui odioia, e abominada pella lei, 
em que ienam hade dar largeza. Sendopois 
iftoafsi, nosqueporleiexprefla nam temos 
que he livre o matador que matou ourro que 
o cometeo, e felhe con^edemos livramento, 
he fomente por que a rezam natural perfiiade* 
que he li^ito a qualquer homem defended© 
de outro que o cometer ,equizerlidarcoin! 
eUe; convem que com muito acordo exami**; 

13 z nemos 



70 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


%o Exam 

nemos primciro qual fe aia de chamar ne£ef- 
faria defeza: fe fera ne^eflario re$ebcr com 
huaefpada ao quevier com bua vara na mao: 
& ba tambem de feza em hum fe retirar, e des 
viar do outro,ou he ne^eflfario que tudo as ar¬ 
mas determinem , e fe aiaom dc guardar na- 
paz civil as leis que na guerra com o inimigo 
fe praticam, podendo por outro modo menos 
per judicial des viar oner igo, que be o que a 
ifixdo. jei fempre quer, coniorme ao cafo quando o 
Zi ’ kdram foi morto de noite abrindo cova na 
cafa para entrar nella,no qual cafo a lei efcufa 
de morte ao do no da cafa por aconte^er a. 
eoufa de noite j por em ie aconte^effe de dia 
erao tal bom em culpado em fatigue: por que 
baftava dar vozes > a juntar gente, e nam quiz 
a lei que fe tomaflem armas contra o ladram, 
refiften^ia defiguaia fua for^a* que fo na noi¬ 
te fe con^edia por falta de outra mais leve, 
epello temor que o dono da cafa poderra ter 
de que entranao o ladram dentro o matafife, e 
tambem por que a noite nam da lugar a fe fa- 
zerem as coufas com o refguaado que de dia 
fe podem fazer. Afli que, como dize mos, fe 
deve bem pezar, como, e cm que termoshe 
li?ita a defeza feita com armas com notavel 
offenfado inimigo , c com muita confidera- 
cam fe ha de caminabar nefte cafo, o que as 
ieishumanas ra^io naes bem conhe^eram , e 
afli pedem que o que for cometido fe retire. 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


71 


Dastradicoes. 2X 

efa$a feus requeri mentos ao acgreflbr para 
que o deixe em paz,e quando nada baftarpof* 
ia cndi reitar a efpada, e dcfenderfe, inda que 
entre adefeza fe figa fua offenft. Mas as pis- 
do fas, ou impiag., e venen ofas tradi^oes fern 
fingularcs’, porifo nam hemuiro que nam a- 
chem companhia,e diga o Sntor pella fua gen- 
te, e fua^iaade ; E mudou mens iuitos emim - itch, 
piedademats queasgentes , e mens eflatutos mau 5 *^* 
que as terras que emfeus arredorelee por ifo me£ 
mo: at da cidade de fangues : tumoem ett fare* Iech " 
hua grandefigeir'a , &c. 1 * 7 * 

— ' r 1 1 - " ■' — — ... — 11.1 i n* i „ . . ■ — r.f.Tl 

Cap. 4. Sobrcocafi do hot que acor- 
neoH ham cm. 


E Quando acomear bci varde,ou mother , e mor- Exo j w 
rer , apedreiar[era apedreiadoohoi , e mo fe xi.zr* 
comerd fua carne,iofnor do boifera inocentc. E fe 
0 hoi , acor neador eSe’ des de ontem j 0 ante ontem , e 
for contefiado afeu fnor , e nao 0 guar dor , e marar 
varao, ou mother, 0 hoi fird apeareiado , e tambem 
feu Snor morrera. Se expiacdofor poflafibre elle y 
e dard redempcao defua alma canformc a tudo 0 que 
for pofto fibre elle. Em declaracam defta lei diz a 
faluficacam que de ne nhua maneira, e em ne 
nhum calb ha de morrer o dono do boi acor- 
neador, que matou homem, inda quclhe fof- 
fe proteftado hum £enco de vezes que o guar- 
dafej Sua falfidade he manifcfta , e fe prova. 

1. A lei expreffamente manda que o dono 

B 3 do boi 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


%% Exam 

do bod proteftado morra, c fomente o efcapa 
da morte quando aquelle a, quem toca avin- 

f n$ado fanguelhe con^edaredemp^addogo 
uos dicos termcis o tad homem he litre de 
*norrer,e doutra maneira nao. 

a. Sea lei quizera livrar em tal cafo efte 
homem da morte com dinheiro, ella mefim 
pedira dinheiro, e finalara a cootia delle, affi 
como pedio, e finalou era cafoque o boi ma- 
tftfle fervo,onferva: A lei affi nao fez, mas pe¬ 
dio a vida, e f6 -com confentimento da parte 
mudou a pena em dinheiro: logo a difpofi^ao 
da lei primeira nao foi pedir dinheiro, nem o 
dinheiro pede fatisfazer irefte cafo fora dos 
termos em que ella o concede. 

3. Se o dono do bot em nenhum cafo avia 
de morrer nao tinha a lei paraqae fazer doits 
membros, ham, quando o dono nao foi pro¬ 
teftado, em que o iulga por livre: outro,quatt- 
do foi proteftado.em que o condena,e diz que 
morra. 

4. O que da caufa ao mal,he contado co¬ 
mo author, e obrador do mefmo mal ( confta 
da lei pellojuizodaquelle que abriocova, e 
a nao cubrio, e caio nella boi alheo, o qual he 
condenadoapagaroboi a feu dono comofe 
mefmo o matara:) o dono do boi requerido 
paraoguardar, eonao fez, foi caufadorda 
morte que o dito boi nao guardado deu, logo 
como obrador da mefma morte ha de fer con- 

tado, 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


73 


JD#£> Tradicocs, 

«ado,e como tal ha defer iulgado. 

j. Ajufti$ia pede que o leu fe de a leu do- 
no, e o que peccou contra leu proximo direi- 
ca, ou iadireitamente, fee mal, ou o cajifou, 
latisfa^a. confer rue ao em que peccou: A lei 
he jufta.e nao tor^e do direito em periuizo de 
parte femconfentimento damefma parte; lo¬ 
go o dono proteftado do boi matador > dev6- 
dor do fangue que o feu boi derramou por cul¬ 
pa fua, nao podft fer perdoado fem confenti- 
piento da parte, e lo com elle Ihe con^edeo a 
lei redemp^ao, refpeitando nao lerdireita- 
mente matador, que alias lhe nao con^edera, 
in da. que.a.parte perdoara lete vezes, 


Cap . Sdbre o jmzfi do que tomos* filha y e mat 

por foolher, e filha doJa per dote prof ana, 

E o homewque tomar mother, efun filha y malda- zt V ;, 
deella : emfogo arderao a elle, eatllas,enao 10.14. 
qverd maUade em 0 meio de vos, E a filha do ho• cap. 
memfaper dote qttando come far afornicar , a fen «. »• 
poo ella contamina , em foga ferd ardida. Em de- 
claraijao, oU.corrup^ao deltas leis die a tradi- 
faoquede nenhua maneira eftes crimiuolbs 
profanos had de fer ardidos em fogo, por que 
nao he bem (e vie alii com os homens,. mas a- 
tarlhe hao hua toalha na garganta, e puxarao 
por ella ate que o culpado aora a boca, e co- 
mo a tiveraberta lhe tan$ara 5 hua colher de 

B 4 chumbo 



74 


‘URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


24 Exam 

chumborjuente, e afli fiqua ardido cm fogcs 
Araltradnjam he fella como fe ve, e injurio- 
fa contra a juftfea divina, porquc a nota de 
crael, ecom capa de danofa piadade muda 
feus juizos nefte,e em todos os cafos. provafe 
afaifidade. 

1. Por que a pa!aura,fogo,dc que a lei via, 
denota, e importa fogo tnaterial, aparelbado 
para gaftar, econfomir, e namcoufe algumil 
outra por ardente, e quenfc que feja. da qui 
vemque aquella offcrta que fe fazia ao Snor, 
efe confumia no ibgo, tornava o nome da 
mefma raiz Hebraica, com que o fogo fe no- 
mea. outro fi o verbo. arder, importaardedu- 
ra que fe faz com fogo , e nam le d£ arder em 
fogo fern quefeconfumaacoula ardida.por 
ilb dife Mofeh, Volvcrmehciagora x e verei a vi- 
fam grande eft a,-porque nao ardc ameta . Por que 
nam arde do modo que fe cofturaaarder,con- 
femindofe a coufa ardida. Aqni nos contain 
os traditores (outro nome lhes cabe melhor) 
hu 3 hiftoria, e dizem que os filhos de Aharon 
fiquaramcom oscorpos inteiros daardedura 
que fez o Siior, e am bem fe pode arder hum 
homem fem Ihe queimar o corpo.nos lhes refc 
pondemos que fc ellcs tem virtude para me¬ 
ter hum homem no fogo fem lbe offender a 
corpojfa^am afli; e nam fe nos dard muitoque 
o corpo fe gaffe, ou dcixc de gaftar. porem fe 
dlesparadcixaroeorpointeiro ham de defe 

viar 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


75 


Dattradicoes. 2f 

viar o fogo delle,e por lho de Ionge, para que 
nos contain milagres que f6 Deos pode fazer? 

2. Se prova,por que fora a leiimperfeirif- 
fima, e tneresia culpada de mal efcrita fe tans 
notavelraente trocara as pahmras, e em lugar 
de mandar que o culpado morrefle com crm- 
bo derretido lan^ado pella boca;como manda 
apedreiar com pedras, omandafle arder em 
fogo,palauras que nada tem de chumbo,nem 
deeicaldadura de chum bo. 

3 Por que he mode extraordinary de mor- 
te, exquinta,e eftudado, que a lei nam conho- 
9e,efta cnriofidade inven^ionada de chumbo, 
e nella fe nam acham femeihantes curiofida- 
dcs para matar,mas os modos mais comuns,e 
ordinaries* 

4. Por que fe bem fe nota, o culpado nam 
morria por rezam da quentura que kvava o 
chumbo, mas por rezam da toalna com que o 
afogavam,e Ihe faziam abrir a boca,eaffiqua- 
do vjnhao chumbo ja eftava afogadoj^erimo- 
nia falfo para enganar o povo, e poder meter 
Ihe na^dbe^a que a mortefedava comcoufa 
que (e aquentou ao fogo,e os filhos de Aharon 
fiquaram inteirosda ardedura que fez o Sfior. 
Porifo contra eftas fklfidades, e contra efte 
falfo fogo diz o mefmo Siior. Por que fogo eSla Dot. 
afejb em minha ira, arder A ate obaixo inferior e J* 4 l* 
perdera a terra , e fm prodttccao j com o mais que 
alii fegue. 

B y Cap, 



76 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


2,4 Examt 

Cap-6, Sobre a red&Ppfad da her dad* 
vended*. 

N O Leviticocap.n ♦ Difpoema leiqueo 
nc^eflitado que vendeo parte de iua her- 
dade, alcao ^ando defpois dmheiro.polfa tor- 
nar a remila da mao do comprador. Entra a 
tradi^ao, e diz que nad podera remit com di- 
nheiro que ajuntafle doutta herdadc' qud vep- 
-deonaotaoboa como aque eftava.vettdida: 
-mas baflari qiralquer dinbeiro para remir a 
hefdadeian&ificada. 

Efta tradi^ao he faUIfliwM, tirannaj.einimi- 
eadapobreza. A leihetodaemfavordo ven- 
aedor, e naolhepos condi^ao no difthdro 
(achaque nunqua ouvido.) com duahfciro de 
cfmolas podia remit, qua*Q mais cpaa dinbei- 
ro de outva herdade,que vedeo(mal para elle ) 
E sfuattdo-nao peder rcrhir,fotrd a htrdade em # lo - 
•belt e fiquara a leu dono. alb que toda a lei he 
cm favordo ne^eflitado vendedor, e a tradi- 
^aopellocontrario fuainimiga em favor do 
trico comprador. 

A diferetnja que fazem entre o vendido, ou 
fan&ificado, aliviando na redemp^ao do fan- 
dificado, tarfibem le moftra fer falta ; porque 
para remir a herdade fandificada pede a lei 
3 * 4 queo dono ajunte mais o quintode fuaefti- 

macao^ para remir a vendida nao pede que fc 

ajunte 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


77 


Dm Trtdicocs• 

ajonte mais ao pre^o porque foi vendida. afli 
que aggrava na redemp^ao do fadificado com 
a condi^ao oncroia do quinto qae accrefeen- 
tou, enaoalivia, como os rraditores fazem; 
e he ifto patente nas coufas fandificadas por 
tnuicos lugares da lei. 


Cap. 7 . Sobre ojttizo dotjttefurtcH hot. 

O V ANDO furtnr aigum , boi> ou car mi- Exod. 

ro,e 0 motor vender,pagard finco boispar iX ’ 

hwm hot, e cjtMtro ovelhaspor ovctha,. Efta he 

a lei. conrra ella enfina a tfadi©jfibque fe 0.14- 
dr ao fandificouo boi fiirtado, edefpois.o ve- 
deo naopagaraaodonomats quedous bois. 
Duas faTudaaes abominaveis contem a tradi- 
^a6. Hua em dizer que a Dcqs fe podem fan- 
ctificar furtos. outra em diminuir com efta 
impia capa a condena$ao ao ladrad* 

-iLA primeira le prova por que j o que nao he 
dono da coufa,e a poffue com tao injuftorjtU- 
lo como he 0 de furto, nao pode paflar emou- 
trem o domitiio que elle na6 cem. E afficomo 
novoto nao he valido o voto daquelle, que 
flao tem vontade livre para fe obrigar, falvo 
juntandofe defpois confentimento do fupe- 
rior, afli nao fera a$eita , e do prin^ipio lera 
nulla a offcrtavfeiofada ladrao fandificador* 
que nao era livre para poder landificar. Alem 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


2 $ Sxamt 

ditto manda a lei que nam fe pofla offereecr 
animal em que ouver vi^io.e fe he inhabil pa¬ 
ra fe offerc^er o que temhua perna que bra- 
da# quanto mais o ferd o que procedeo de fiir- 
to , como o he o preso da molher meritoria, 
que a lei manda ie nam leve ao templo: como 
tambem manda a efte ladram devoto que tor- 
ne o feu a feu dono* 

A legunda falftdade fe prova, por que o do¬ 
no do boi nunqua perdeo feu direito,e fe a of- 
ferta do ladram valeo, pagara ^ineo bois ao 
dono do boi, e pagard a faodidade aoflferea 
quelhe fez, por que duas vezes fe o brigou, 
hud pella furto, e oUtra pella olferta. 

%. Se o que diz a tradicara ouveffe defer,a 
lei fiquaria de fratudada de fua difooficam em 
favor docrtminofo, e aos ladroes le dava capa 
para fugirem da [pern com fandificar os fur- 
tos, abfurdo tarn grande.e irracional que nam 
pode caber em homens. 

5 , Ou efte boi fandificadohe da fandida- 
d«,eao (acerdotc fe hao de dar dous por ftofo 
pena de fe alhear dcfpois de fandificado: 
on he db dono dclle, e ao dono ha defer a pa- 
ga fcita. E eisque ao dono ha deler a paga fei- 
ta, e a fandidade nam ha de aver coufaalgua; 
Jogo de que fruito foi a fanetificao , e que 
trouxe a fandidade, pois outra coufa nam ve- 
mos que ali viarfe o ladrao da pena,e diminuir 
a condenacam ? Ate onde fc ha de eftcnder 

a tortura 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


79 


Dastradtcoes. 29 

a torrura de falfas lingoas em favor de todo o 
crirainofb , e mao faomem, e reprovacam dos 
ivizos divinos? 

Cap. t. Sobrc 0 ufe dos tephilim. 

O Ulb dos tephilim he ab ufo, e invencam 
dehomensque mal entenderam , ede- 
claram a lei, e corao tal deve fer reprovado, e 
julgado. 

1. Por que a lei nao mandoufazer ostaes 
tephilim,nem deu o modo de feu feitio,e na6 
fomente os nam mandou fazer,mas nem inda 
o nome lhe conhe^epor que em toda ella nao 
lam nom eados, e a traduc9ao Caftelhana nao 
traduzio verdade. E fe a lei quizera que tal 
coufa fe fizelfe, primeiro o ouvera de madar, 
e dar o modo de feu feitio, como fez lobre o 
cicith, o qual mandou fazer, e declarou a cor 
que avia de ter, e o Jugar onde fe avia de por, 
eeftecoftume obfervou fempre em todasaa 
coufas que quiz fe fizeffem como por toda el¬ 
la largamente fe ve. 

2. Por que os lugares donde fequertirar 
mandaraento dos rephilim forao ignorante, e 
indiferetamente entendidos dos expolitores, 
por que a lingo agem da lei nao he propria, 
mas trocada, como muitas vezes nella fe ufe, 
eaffife deve entender allcgorica mentecon- 
forme a mente de quern fala .Efiraa aspelattras p M . 
ejias/jne et* te enco msndo hose fibre teu (oracao,&, 6. 

£ ataUs 



80 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


ycr Exame 

E atcdas has porfinalfiobre tua mao,efieraopar fir on- 
uus entre tens olhos, Encomendava naquelle Iu- 
gar o medianeiro da lei como bom , e fabio 
meftreao povoa lembran^a do amordivino, 
e para mais encare^damente lha perfuadir, 
come^ou no cora^ao raiz dos peniamento*, * 
logo veo a lingoa, e finalmente fe aprovekoit 
de hum modo de falar vfado, e coftumado no 
que muito fe qucr encomendar, e dife : afli te 
lembraras deftas palauras como que fe as trou- 
xeras por final na mao.e como coufa que fem- 
pre fe traz diantc dos olhos, que dando a vifta 
nellanao pode efque^er. provafe daramente 
por outro lugar da lei que fala no mefmo fen- 
Exod. tido: E fieri a ti por finalfibre tua mao,e por lem- 
i}' 9 . branca entre teus olhos &c. Elogoabaixo, muda 
^.16. alingoagem,e diz: £ fieri a ti por finalfiobre tua 
mao, epor fir ontaes entre teus olhos. Demaneira 
quehuavezdizquefer&por lembran^a, ou¬ 
trage fera por frontaes.e nao lhe a^erta fem- 
pre o nome, donde fe moftra que o dizer que 
feia por frontaes, he dizer que feia por lero- 
bran^e dizer que feia por lembran^nao he 
dizer que fe efcreva, e le encaixe em hua cai- 
xa,e efta caixa fe traga atada na tefta. efte mo¬ 
do de falar allegorico * e forte ufa a lei rnuitas 
vezes.afli chama ao povo duro de pefcolo pa¬ 
ra moftrar fua muita porfia. Diz que quebrou 
o Snor o jugo dos pefcofos que o povo trazia 
go Egypto para mclhor debuxar o pezo da 

fervi- 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


81 


Das Tradicoes. 3 % 

fervidao. Que a terra prometida manavalei- 
te,e mel para mais exprimir fua groflura,e fua- 
vidade. tudo fao alleeorias (allegoria,por que 
todos entendao, fe chama, quando hua cou- 
fa dizem as palavras, e outro he o fentido do 
que fala.) nos mefinos termos falou Selomoh: 
Mifiricordia , everdade nao te detxem :*taas fi¬ 
bre tnas gargantas t efireveas fibre as taboos de P rover, 
test foracam. E nos cantares cap. 8 • Poem me co- 
mofillofibre ten corafam,comofillofibre ten brafo. 17 . 
Quer dizer, lembrate de mim. Sm minhaspal- 
mas teefirevi, tensmnros diante demim fimpre. 49 .j6 . 
Bern lembrado eftou de ti. Dizem os contra- 
rios que o final he coufa real, e vifivel, e nao 
querem verquea lingoagemdaleihe troca- 
da, e nam fala propriamente.tambe o fello he 
coufa real,e vifivel, e com tudo nenhum fel¬ 
lo real fe encomenda que fe ponha. 

3. Se prova, por que contem em fi inde- 
$en^ia, inconvenien^ia, impoffibilidade an- 
daro homem todoodiacomo bra^o atado, 
cativo, e embara^ado para todas fuas obras 
naturaes,e fervis,qual andaria trazendo aquel- 
les la^s, e impedimentos nelle, e na cabe^a, 
como era ne^efTario que trouxeffe em todo 
tempo, ealeinamdeu, nem podia darinde- 
^en^ias taes,inconvenien9ias,-e impoffibilida- 
des. 

4. Porque fe o pre9eito de atar tephilim, 
fora prc9eito da ki>efte pre9eito obrigava em 

todos 



82 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


32 Sxame 

todos os dias, por que a lei iem ex^ei^am fa- 
lou. mas o ufo efte nam he, e nos fabbados, e 
feftas he o povo des obrigado: logo a ordena- 
9am he toda de homens , ou contra a lei des- 
obrigaram o povo (nam metemos aqui lua ri- 
dicula repofta) mas le raoftra que de homens 
he a ordena^am. 

y. Por que as regras que le dam lobre o 
feitio,e poftura dos tephilim.todas fam regras 
erradas , e des encaminbadas, e nam fam re¬ 
gras da lei. Errada regra he, e chea de muita 
gra^a, dizer que o couro deftas cafas, e encai- 
xos, deve ler feito de bezerro, animal que le 
pode comer, por que aULfe fiqua comprindo 
Exodi] o lugar da lei: Por qt*e fiia a lei do Snor em tua 
>3. hoc a. Outrofi he errada a que manda que a 
aradura do bra^o efquerdo le fa$a em parte 
que refponda,e caia lobre ocora^am,por que 
defta maneira fe fiqua comprindo a lei: £fir *10 
ms paUttras eflas fibre ten coracam. E affi por ef- 
tas, e outras regras defatinadas fe conven^e 
cuia feia a ordem,e feitio dos tepbilim. 

6. Por que os Judeuschamados, Saddu- 
^eus, nam ufaram,nem vfam o tal modo,e fam 
tam antigos os Saddu£eus,quc quando le fou- 
beonomeaos Pharifeus fe loube tambem a 
dies, c eftes nomes fe poferam na fegunda c a- 
la para fe conhe^erem, e apartarem huns dos 
outros. Confirmapois oulo, e teftemunho 
defies a verdade que pella lei fe tira, e conde- 

nao 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


83 


Das Tradicoes . 3 3 

na o comtario fuperfti^iofo, errado abufo, 
pella mefoia lei, como tal, reprovado. 


Cap. y. Sobreofeitio da prcmpifao i e 
abttfoS nella. 

O Ufo de fazer priab >he albeo da ^ircun- 
^Ham, provale 

1. O verbo Hebraico de que a lei ufbu> 
(ignifica, e importa , cortar ao redor, cortar 
diante, cortar de todo fora. Ifto fe faz com a 
fimprez ^ircum^ilam ,e nam he neceflario a- 
juntar, priah, que hedividir: logo a priah que 
defpois de ia cortado o prepu^io ie faz,he iu- 
perflua, e impertinente, alhea da lei, e da $ir- 
cum^ifam. 

2. O que no prepu^iohcfobeio, einutil, 
e faz o membro ycrrado , f6 com a ^ircum^i- 
fam fe lan^a fora, e a lei nam pedio, nem quiz 
que fe abrilTe, nem defcobriffe mais ,por que 
ieria imperfei^am, edemafia : logo a priah 
qne efta demalia caufa,e que a lei uam pedio, 
ia nam he filha da lei. 

3. A lei nam manda fazer priah, eosSad- 
du^eus nam ufam fazer priah: logo o ufo dos 
Pharifeus fern lei, antes contra a for^a de fiias 
palavras , e contra o ufo dos Saddu9eus, por 
abufo deve fer julgado, como o temos con- 
ve9ido em outros cafos expreflbs, que fa- 
2cm diminuir geralmente fua verdade. 

w C £ fe 



84 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


34. Exame 

E fe poferamos os fundamentos cm que dies 
fe fundam, cheos de erros,e vaidade, appare* 
^era muico mais o que difemos. 

He abufo fuperftitiofo, e mao na ^ircuro^i- 
fam a cadeira , e mais apparato qtfefe ordena 
para fe affentar o profeta Eliahu , e tudo ifto 
eftd fundado em nua fabula nao digna de fe 
efcrever, nem de gaftar o tempo nella. 

Outro fi he abufo torpe, e feo romar o 
raeoibro na boca para Ihe chuparofangue.E 
arezao que fe dd em defeulpa,que elle defpois 
de 9ircum9idado ia nao he o que de antes era 
com huas hiftorias a efte propofito nao quero 
eu efcrever, por que a mam nam pode levar a 
pena a fazelo. Tudo fao fuperfticoes feas, 
aborre^idas do Snor Deos, e lan^adas. 


Cap. to. Sobre 0 Lulab. 

E Tomareis a vos em 0 dia pr i metro frttito de ar - 
voreformofa, curvidades de palmas, He 
falla atradi^ao que fe da por declara^ao defta 
leiem quanto diz que aquife encomenda to- 
mar hum 9idram,que he fruito fermofo, e ou- 
tros ramos de $ertas arvores , e com elles na 
mam fazer movimenros, e remeteduras me- 
neandoos. E Deos efta dizendo a quern taes 
logos ,e invents faz diante delle fem feu 
mandado, que fe Ihe tire das fa$es por que o 
nao pode olhar, nena ver. 


Provafe 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


85 


Das Tradicoes. | jp 


Provafe a falfidade, porque confta da lei* 
que o fim para que eftes ramos fe mandad to- 
mar, be para fazer com dies cabanas, e mo¬ 
ral nellas : Em cabanas merareis fete dias . Com 
dizer que motor iao cm cabanas fete dias, dife 
que os ramos cram para fazer asmcOnas ca¬ 
banas em que fe avia de morar. e claro eftava 
que nao erao para fazer iogos, ou floreos no 
ar. ifto que pella lei bem feve, mandoa Hezra 
to povo que fizcffc, quando Ihe dile que fof- 
fem ao monte e trouxeflem ramos de olkeira* 


livrt 

t. 

taf.i. 


pinho, murta, c outras para fazer cabanas co- 
mo eftava e Fcrito. Affi que o que eftava efcri- 
to.era que os ramos fe avia6 de toroar para fa¬ 
zer cabanas, e nam para florear. e as mefmas 
cabanas feitas de verdura alegre aiudavam a 
alegria da fefta. £ eis que para fazer as caba¬ 
nas erao os ramos, ia logo nam eram para os 
trazer as coftas, e efgrirair com elles. 

2. Se raoftra a fafiidade, por que a lei nam 
diz que tomem fruito fermolo, mas fruito de 
arvore fermofa, affi que a arvore, e nao o frui¬ 
to pede fermofa, donde em vao fe canfam em 
bulcar £idro€s por fruito fermofo. 

O fentido da lei he, que ella manda tomar 
os ramos das arvorcs, e nam o fruito fern ra- 


mo, e quando dife que tomaffem o fruito en- 
tendeo o ramo inteiro em que coftuma eftaro 
fruito: como quando diz : £ via a mother que Ctn ' 1* 
boa a arvore para comer: nam quiz dizer que a 

C 2 mefma 



86 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Irm. 

II.1 6, 


Vfd. 

jx. 


Bxame 

mefma arvore era boa para comer,mas o frui- 
to da arvore era bom , e por todo enten- 
deo aqui, parte. Da mefma maneira Hez- 
ra no lugar atras allegado ,diz quetomaflem 
folhas de oliveira, e folhas de pinheiro, folhas 
de murta: nam quer dizer que tomera f6 as 
folhas, que com as folhas boa cafa fepode- 
ria armar , mas os ramos em que eftam as 
folhas • 

Arvore fermofa fe chama com rezao a oli- 
veira. Oliveirafolhudaformofaemfruito defor- 
mo fur a chamou o Snor ten nome. A ella fe com- 
parou David comaconfiat^a que em Deos 
tinba pofta: 8 eu conto otiveira reverdefida em 
a cafa de Deos &. A ella offere^erao tambem as 
arvores o reinado, e tudo pella groflura de 
feu fruito, formofura grave, e continua ver- 
duralhehedevido. Pella mefma oliveira en- 
tendeo Hezraquealci falava, eafliellahea 
primeira nomeada de que mandou cortar os 
ramos. 

Tambem fe nao ha de entender que a ca¬ 
bana nam pofla fcr feita falvo com ramos de 
quatro arvores corao os contrarios querem 
que o feu Lulab fo deve fer feito do ^idram, 
palma,murta, e falgeiro, por que a lei uiou dc 
palavras maisgeraes,edeoaixo de arvore fer- 
mola, e elpefa fe entcndem , e podem enten¬ 
der mais arvores, pinheiro, ^iprefte , arvores 
accomodadas para aquellc fim , por que po- 

diao 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


87 


Das tradicocs, $7 

dfao bem tapar, e confervar a verdurafpor es 
pa^o de tempo, que tudo nas cabanas fede- 
ieia. affi. Hezra uiou de mais arvores,como fk 
ve,mas todas bem entendidas debaixo das pa* 
lavras da Jei. 

A fignifica^am deftes ramos %a, que a lei 
nos quiz lembrar que os que confiao em o 
Siior, e fazem jufti^a , nunqua fe murcham, 
nem iecam, e mui convenientemente qti%- 
dram ramos de taes arvores naquellas caba¬ 
nas * que repceiencao hua foberana, e eteraa 
providen^ia de Deos vivo, que no deferto le- 
quiofo, e falto de naantimentos fuftentou as 
iuas criaturas defemparadas de todo outro 
abrigo, e que fo de fua mam efperavam cada 
dia o que avia6 de comer. Por ifo fe compa- 
ramos bonsa arvDre prantada juntodas ago* 

*as y que ordifiariamente tem verdura, e os 
maos a pal ha feca. 8 ferd come arvorc pronto.- tjal.il 
da fobre os rtbeiros das agoas , cjde dard /eft frusta 
tm feu tempo, e fuafolha nao catra, &. Uto pois 
lcmbra a cabana endere^ada para confirmar 
ao bomem na confian^a em feu Deos , e ifto 
lecnbram os verdes ramos de arvores fempre 
verdes, de que ella fe compoem. 

Ninguera fe embara^e com dizer a lei: E 
tomareia a vos. Sara dativos vlados no Hebrai- 
co, e val tanto como dizer, e vos tomareis. 

To ma agora a tcufilhoe anda a ti d terra do Aio- 
riah, Quer dizer: e tu anda, ou andate. Patfai 

C 3 a vos 



88 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Exstmt 

Dm. a vos o vaIU Zeted. Vos paflai, pafTaivos o val- 
*• le zered : e cada paffo. Em declatar outros c 
ftrOmpe^os two nos detemos por atalbar. 


Cap. it. Sobrto exume da carntque 
fe hade comer, 

E Nfina atradicao que o animal enfermo 
da forfura, que nelta tem certas maculas, 
oupor alguns nos efta pegada nas ilhargas 
nam he bom para comer, e fe deve por iulgar 
immundo»por que com eftes ftnaes he ^erto 
averdemorrerdentro de ham annojdpa^o 
breve.que baftapara iafecontar por morto. A 
tal tradi^ao he falfa, por que a lei nam da por 
immudoo animal vivo,gordo, valente,e lam, 
nem mandou que o vifitaffem fe era achacoio 
do figado: ao morto he que d£ por immundo. 
bom efta que por tao leves achaques fe ouvef- 
le acamedelan9araoscacns,ou pouco me- 
nos,e que na lei l'e ponhao difficuldades,e pe- 
zos que ella nam quiz por, e aos homens fe 
dem occafioes de peccar,que nenhum la<jaria 
fa^lmcnte o feu animal a perdcr. 

2. Se moftra a falfidade, por que os ani- 
maes que fe levavao ao facrifi^io lern macula 
exterior, des pois de dcgolados, fua carne era 
boa para fe comer, c fan&ifkada ( falvo lefe 
difciem novos defatioos) logo muito mclhor 

he para 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


89 


DasTratUcots. 39 

be para fe comer a do animal que natnfoi fan- 
&ificado* 

3. O remedio de olhar as forfaras nam he 
baftanie para defviar poderfe coiner animal 
que em breve aia de morrer, e afli em yam 
achado (fe he for^a que aia de morrer dentro 
de hum anno hum boi doente do figado, ou 
bofe deixo aos medicos para dilputarsm ) 


Cap. 12. Sobreoabttfodenao comer 
carne com leite. 

E Ntre as provas que os authores 4a tradi- 
9amcoftumam traaer para moftrara ne- 
9elfidade que della fe tern para declara^ao da 
lei, he, quefem a dita trad^am nam fe pode 
entender peila lei que he vedado comer carne 
com leite.affi que para provar a tradi9a6>alle- 
gao, e trazem ouira fafla crad^am^ efte he o 
leu eftilo ordinario, e feguido. 

Dhc a lei r AW coz.inbards 0 cabrito m leite de 
fnamai. Quern naoveqaehe fonho , edefva- 
rio tirar deSas palavras que nam fe pode co¬ 
mer carne com leite ? A qui fe fala em filho, e 
fe falfa em mai, e manda a lei que nam fe pe- 
936 aparelhos a mai para frigir, ou cozer nel- 
les feu morto filho para defpois comelo.Nem 
quiz que aquellc leite que lhe fervio , e devia 
fervir de fua fuftentacam , e alimento fofle in- 

C 4 ftrumen- 



90 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


4.0 Examt 

ftrurnento de fua deftruicam, c ruins. He pre* 
^eito femelhante ao outro que diz^que nadfe 
mate a mai com o filho no mefmo uia. he fe- 
melhanre ao que diz que nam fe cative a mai 
com os filhos no ninho. Para la caminha o ou¬ 
tro , que o filho efteia com a mai oito dias , e 
antes deUes fe lhe uao pofla tirar para lacrifi- 
cio. He crueldade , e deftruicam que, como 
dizem , leva couro , e cabelo , matar a mai, e 
tnatar os filhos, e muita fereza, e deshumani- 
dadequerer cozinhat o filho no leite de fua 
propria mai. affi di fc Jahacob quando tcmeo 
Gen. & viita de leu irmao : Nao venha y e mate a mtm, 
3z-11. eamaifobreosfilbts. Nao lhe veoaleiao pen- 
famento vedar qqe nam fe comelfe fobre a 
came huatalhadade qaeiio , antes he a pro- 

f >riacomida.E fe ellaquiz dizerifto,e em leu 
ugar mandou que o cabrito fe naocozinhaf- 
fenoleireda mai,he ne^elfario fazer outra 
eferitura , e a efta podemos chamar errada , e 
mai elcrita. E poisquealfi nam avemos dedi- 
zer. mais conveniente lera que atradi^ao feia 
falla, como he , e o abulb lundado nella ridi- 
culo, e luperfti^iolo, fiquando em feu vig or 
o eftatuto da lei,de que fe tira ex^ellente dou- 
trina, humanidade, e piadade , o que nam he 
do fingjdo contrario. 




•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


91 


Dattradicocs. 4.1 

Cap. 13. Sobre a coma das lads , e feftas* 

N O modo de comar as luas nam tern os 
Phariftus nenhua firmeza. par que huas 
vezes come^araomes antes daxonjun^aoi, 
outras na conino^aok, outran finalmente hum, 
e dous dias defpoi$,como poder4 ver que qui- 
zer toraar na rnana os lunarios de cada anno. 
E como eftesmodosdecontar nam poflao ftr 
todos vetdadeiros,e hum io fe aia de obfervar 
ou conforme i conjun^ao ou conforme ao ap- 
pare^inaento , de fbrsa fe fegueque fe hua 
conta ioi 9erta,a outra foi errada*e pello co»- 
feguinte as feftas que defta conta dependent. 

Aqui femetem huas hiftorias fobre huas 
teftemunhas quefe tomavam fobrea vifta da 
lua, outras de correos^outras de fogos que ft 
fazi&m para avifar aos de longe, por que nas 
fuas moradas nam ft fabia qnando era lua, f»- 
bre que nam he berogaftar tempo. Tudofatti 
fabulas , huas contrarias as outras , em que ft 
achara nail inconvesieiNjias > e impofliveis. 
Os inftituidoces deftas earias ordes de contas, 
nam quizeraque as feftas lhes caiftem em ^er- 
tos dias por inconvenietes ftus que elles meft 
mos coniideraram y e por iftomelmo variaratn 
no modo de contarasluas.hora ma drugandou 
horaalongado.e efta he a verda deiraverdade, 
E elles mefmos confeftam, e dize que pclla lei 
tinham licen^a para afsi fazer,coufa ta alhea,e 

C y con- 



92 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


42 Exams 

contraria a ella,que fioalou os tnefes,e os dia* 
dos mefes, e nenhua coufa deixou arbitraria. 

Que o appare^imento da lua fe nao aia de 
efperar para contar o cues, fe moftra, pof que 
podia a lua ns*6 appare^er por impediroento 
de nuves, e affi pafiar o tempo de contar; ou- 
tro Ci o na6 appare^er a lua nao tira que ella 
nao feia ia outra, enova,eaffi nada curare- 
eoqs do appare^imento, mas do tempo em 
que ella he nova, afsi para contar os dias, pel- 
lo curio do fol nos governamos, e inda que o 
fol nam appare^a , nem por ifoacontados 
dias.efperapelloappare^imento do fol. No 
£eo anda , e fe move, como a lu5 tambetn. 
Dias partidos nao fe contam por dias,e afsi fe 
a lu5 toi hoie nova ao meio dta, claro efti que 
hoie nam he o primeiro do mes, mas aman- 
ham , e efta he a conta direita. e de qualquer 
maneira que fofle , femprecra ne^effario que 
fofle hua, firme, e nao vafiada. 

Defta variedade no modo de contar as lu2s 
fogue o accref^entamento que fc faz nos dias 
dasfeftus 9elebrando dous por hum,eoito 
por fete contra a prohib^ao da lei que nam 
quer que fe aiunte , nem diminuaa jeusefta- 
tutos Afsiquando mandaque feofferc^a hum 
carneiro cada manham,e tarde, hum he que fe 
ha de offere^er naquelle fentido, e nao dous. 
E fe foi crime que mere^eo mortc offerc^cr 
fafumcrioao Silor com diferentefogo,que 

clle 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


93 


Dm Tradicoes • ^ 

die nam mandou, por que no poderi fern**© 
xtiudar a ordera, e numero de feus dias fend* 
ficados? Selomoh narti fez quatorze dias fcfta 
de cabanas, os fete primeiros foram volonta- 
rios na dedica^am do altar, os vltimos fete de 
cabanas pello preceito da lei , como fe ve no 
livro fegundo das palavras dos dias cap. 7. 

£ quando afsi fora,que nao foi, hum exemplo 
nam fe traz de hum cafo que podcffe acoote- 
cer por algum refpeito, para com elle fazer 
lei. A verdade he que elles com dobrar os dias 
quizerao temperar a mudan^a das luas, c 
ajuntaram hum erro a outro erro. 

Cap. tjf. Com alguns cxemplos que ft traz.em 
cm ajuda da tradipao. 

L A difemosque os authores da tradi^ara 
traze para fua juftifica^ao exemplos com 
que mais moftrao fua falfidade^egeira grade) 
dos quais meteremos aqui alguns,em que mo- 
ftraremos fer falfa fua declaracam, e por eftes 
fe poderam julgar os mais. Dizem am. 

Se quando a lei diz que o que entrar na vinba 
alhea poflacomer quantoquizer, eo queen- 
trar no compo colha efpigas com a mao, nam 
tivefTemos a tradfea6 que declara que ifto fe 
entende no jornaleiro que entrou para traba- 
lhar com o dono da vinha, ou campo , como 
cm outra parte diz que nam fe erabo^e o boi !>«*. 
que trilhar na eira,aos homens lhe nam fiqua- 

ria 



94 


■URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


44 


Exxmt 


ria que comer, que vindimar, nem fegar, e 
nam fe ha tie dar aos pobres tanta li^en^a. 

Efta declara^am he falfa , ridicula, e ini- 
migadapobreza. He falfa, por que fala a lei 
nas entradas que fe fazem nas vinha s,ou cam- 
posquando o dono nam efta prefente, e pro- 
hibe aos que entrarem poder levar uvas,e mo- 
Ihos para cafa fopena de furto , mas concede 
poder comer qua tro cachos de uvas. Afsi que 
a lei he em favor do dono da vinha, pofto que 
ao paflageiro, ou pobre da algua li^en^a. 

He ridicula, por que vem a dizer que a lei 
manda aos (egadores que nam fegem o pam 
com fou^esunasque com as maons colham as 
efpigas. Equeo que andou na vindima nam 
poifi levar para cafa na ^efta alguns cachos de 
uvas inda que o dono efteia prefente , e Ihc^j 
vela lev'fcr. Em fim finge que a lei veo a dar tf£- 
graaosvindimadores, e fegadores. 

Heinimiga da pobreza,e geralmente de 
toda a humanidaae. como fe ve , pois nam 
querquefe pofla eftender a mam a vinha pa¬ 
ra comer dous cachos deuvas fern crimeae- 
furto,ediz (coufa gra$iofa)que em efpigas 
desfeitasna mam fe confumiriam as novida- 
des fefe deffe li^en^a para comer efpigas no 
campo.afsi que efta he a tradi£am,e eftas ma- 
ravilhasdcscobre. 


Segundo exemplo : A lei diz que os pais 

entraram 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


95 


Dae tradicoes. 


4f 


entraram no Egypto com fetenta a!mas>epor 
ella namfeacham mais que fefenta c note* 
enfina pois a tradicara que as fententa fe en- 
chem com hua filha de Dinah avida do raan- 


^ebo violador. 

Falfa, e torpe he a trad^ara. as fetenta al¬ 
mas fe acham , e contam com Iahacob que he 
o primeiro, e principal contado como era re- 
zara que foffe, e nam que fiquafife de fora co¬ 
mo querem os fonhadores. £ eflesosnomesdos Cm 
filhos de Ifrael que entrarao em o Egypto , Jaha- ***** 
cob, e few filhos. O primeiro contado he Ja- 
nacob cabe^a de todos, ecom elle fe faza 


primeira fbma de trinta e tres que o texto 
Faz, onde elles dizera que nam acham mais 
que trinta e duas por que lan^am fora ao mef- 
mo lahacob. Querem aiu darfe para feu com- 
mento do verfo que diz : todas as almas defeus 
filhos , e de fitas filhos trinta e tres. E Leah nam 


teve mais que hua filha. era pois aneta filha 
defuafilhaoutra filha,eafli fe fiqua verifi- 
cando , dizem elles, a palavra no plurar. O 
fundamento he tal como a declara^am prin¬ 
cipal. Nam he inconvenience,anteslingoa- 
gemtrilhada, evfadadizer que humhomem 
temonzefilhos, efilhas,inda que quandofe 
venha a particularizar a coufa le lhe nam a- 
chem mais que dez filhos,e hua filha.E fe elles 
quizerem ver, fem dar muitas paffadas acha- 
rao no mefmo lugar exemplo de femelhante 

lingoagem 



96 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


4 * Exame 

lingo agcmleam affirm onde dizqueveo Ja- 
hacobao Egypto, etoda fua femente com el- 
k, fuas filhas, e as filhas de feus filbos. E em 
todos os filbos de Iahacob nam ouve mais que 
huafilhaque com elles entrafTe no Egypto, 
chamada, Serach, Elba de Afer, como fc ve 
no mefmo capitulo. 

Ter^eiro exemplo ; nao fe pode entender 
pell a lei o verfo que diz, Naofax varao de feu 
16. 19. Ingar em 0 did Sen mo: Por que huns podiao di- 
zer que feu lugar era fua cafa, outros fua ^ida- 
de. E affi declara a traded que cfte lugar fp 
entende diftan^a de dous mil pafTos que fe 
podem andar em Sabbat. Elles tern muita re- 
zatn em por tanta difficuldade no efttendime- 
to defte lugar,pois cm fim ouvejudeus que di- 
ferao queohomem naofe podia mover em 
Sabbado do eftado em que eftivefTe, e que ou 
eftivefle deitado.ou affentado,ou em pe,neffe 
eftado avia de fiquar todo o dia. 

Efta trad^am he falfa ,e o lugar da lei he cla- 
ro como o fol para quern tiver olhos,e nenhua 
ne^effidade tem de que fe conte hiftorias para 
o entender. Nam diz a lei que o homem nam 
iaia de fua cafa em Sabbat,ne aquilhe da ago¬ 
ra regras dos pafTos que pode andar; diz que 
nam tome a fair para colher o man em o dia 
fetimo contra a prohibi^am , que era aquillo 
mefmo que o povo mal avia feico como pare- 
■v. 17. ^e do que fiqua atras: Sfoi em 0 dia fetimo Jai - 

rat 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


97 


Dastradicees . 4? 

ra g do povo para colher • Afli que o lugar he da- 
to, e patente,e nem por fo rubra fala no que le 
pode andar,ou veo para ifo,nem o povo tinha 
fcito algua iornada iobre que folfe ne^eflario 
dizerlhe que nara caminhafle mais. 

E quanto o que elles dizem , que fe podem 
•ndar tantospalfos, que venhaoa fazcrqua- 
tro legoas : le o fazer jornada encontra a lan- 
tfifica^ao do dia, ^effa^ao da obra,e repoufo, 
mui larga li^en^a he, poder andar quatro le- 

f ;oas em Sabbath , nem eu fei para que tantas 
egoas fe aviam de andar por palfatepo. Oue 
para ir folgar a hua quinta he efte rouito cami- 
nhar. Mas efta difputa nam entrava aqui,onde 
a lei nam veda o fimprez andar, mas vcda ir ao 
monte a colher man. 

Quarto exemplo : nam fe podia faber que 
palavras fe aviao de efcrever nos poftes da ca- Daa< 
fa,e portas,fe a tradi^am nam enunara que co- 
me^avam em. ouvclfracl, e acabavam no fim, 
e em tuas port as. 

Nefte exemplo he a tradi^am, outro fi fal- 
la, e minineira em muitas partes. As palavras 
que fe mandam efcrever lam as que ieguem: 
jimaras ao Snor Dees test com todo tea cor a fad , e 
com toda tna alma , c com toda tuaforca : O mais 
que le aiunta: E fir am aspalavras eftas t &c. He 
encomendar a lerabran^a das mefmas pala¬ 
vras, e dar modo para melhorlembrarem, di- 
zendo que fe efcrevam nas portas, o qual mo- 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


48 Exame 

do nam entra na efcritura: £ efcreveUs hasfe. 
hre ospojles de ttta cafe, e em tuasportas : que he o 
que hei de efcrever ? aquellas palavras que eu 
te encomendo hoie, alaber : amards aoShor 
Deos test. 

He ridicula, fobre falfa, a tradi^ao, em di- 
zerque a tal efcritura fe devefazer na porta 
da cozinha , e em todas quantas ouver na ca- 
ftij por que nem na porta da cozinha, nem era 
nenbua que aia na cafa , falvo nos poftes da 
porta da rua encoraenda a lei efta efcritura: e 
efcrevelas has fobre os pojies de tm cafe: O que fe- 
gue: e em tuas portas : Se ba de entender pel- 
las portas das ^idades, que fam portas publi- 
cas, por que a palavra Hebraica, Sahar , nam 
feaccomoda a qualquer porta; ea porta da 
cafa tern feu nome particular, e nunqua fe da- 
ra que fe chame, Sahar , fala pois a lei nos po¬ 
ftes das cafas que eftao para a rua , e nas por¬ 
tas das^idades, e neftes Iugares manda elcre- 
ver as palavras referidas com letras gran- 
des , legiveis, e claras, e nam manda que as 
metamem hum canudo enroladas,eempa- 
peladas. 

Temos poftos os exemplos que baftam para 
bem fe poder enteder de que cafta fao os que 
os contrarios coftumao trazer para perfuadir 
ne9effidade da fua tradicao.pellos quais fe co- 
lhe que nam fomete nao declarao a lei.mas in- 
da ajuntatn novas fabulas, novos fonhos , mi¬ 
nings, 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


99 


Das tradicoes . 49 

nini^es, parvoi^es com que defcobretn ma- 
ioreserros*e falfidades. 

Outro fi temos poftos cafos que baftam pa¬ 
ra prova, e confirma9am da primeira propo- 
(ica5, pellos quais fe ve fer a tradicam oJho 
por olho contraria 4 lei efcrita. Se agora aiun- 
taratnos as refpoftas dos traditores,e lhes ref- 
ponderamos , fizerafe hum grande volume, 
e foram tantos os erros quefe defcobrirao que 
trariam dor de coracam a quem antes os quer 
cubertos que defcubertos,e nam defeia faber, 
nem veraverdade j amando mais morrerno 
deferto com os velhos rebeldes ouvindo aos 
muitos, pofto que mentirofos , que entrar na 
terra prometida ouvindo aospoucos, obedi- 
entes a Deos,e verdadeiros. Ja logo nam que- 
remos canfar fern fruito , nem trazerlhes efta 
dor: deixomo los antes era feu caminbo, em 
quetambemfeacham, evamosareceber, e 
reparar as feridas de hum mao, que fem ter 
com que poder offender, fe atreveo a querer 
fazelo,epara dar primeiro noti^ia fera conve- 
niente dizer alguma coufa. 

Prefetch. 

Ia nos he ne^eflario acudir a defender a pro¬ 
pria honra ,e tirala a falvo dos dentes daquella 
m 4 befta q no prin9ipio nomeamos,a qualpor 
entender comprazia 4 multidam, e fiquava be 
rtputado diatedellamao duvidou querer toma 
Ianosdetes,ever fe podia penetrala.Aprimeira 

D dentada 



100 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


JO Exame 

dentada que lbe quiz dar, pare^endo Ihe que 
dada eft a, fiquava habilitado para dar todas as 
mais que quizefTe , foi, efcrever no proiogo 
do feu tratado que elle,e os da fua companma 
forao poderofos para nos fazer lan^ar da 
morada de hua ^idade, aonde por alguns an- 
nos habitgmos. Efcritura por ^erto deft ver- 
gonhada mais do que fe pode dizer, e que nao 
podia fair falvo ae hum femelhante, que de 
nonra fabe pouco, e a quern a malijia indioa 
a ufar da baixeza natural. 

Coftume he , monftro fero , eabominavcl, 
das ^idades politicas , degradar, como tu di- 
zes , os empeftados, epor ifo afTenta ben o 
degredo em velhacos aa tua cafta, que que- 
rem encher, e atargar abarriga a cufta de fa¬ 
zendas alheas, eeftes he muito bem que te- 
uhaoatrancadas as portas , e nam poflam en- 
trartiellasfenaorebu^ados j mas os homens 
como eu nunqua tern atrancadas as portas,en- 
trao, e faiem cada vez que lhes da prazer fern 
mafcara , nem rebu^o, por que nao tem de 
quem temerfe. E fe em lugar de lan^ar de fi 
velhacos, as^dades os confervaflem,elan- 
^affem antes os bons , honrados, e honeftos, 
nao fb nao raere^eriao o nome de politicas, 
mas fechamariao com mais rezao covis de la- 
droes, e defenforas delles. Chegas defventu- 
rado a tal cegeira que andando por baixo dqp 
pes,tributaries fervo nam conne^es teu efta- 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


101 


Dastradicocs. ft 

do »finges, e poens cm ti o imperio de que 
Peos te tem privado. Ouerias obrigarmea 
que morafle toda a vida em hua terra aborre- 
^ida de mira, que nam tinha coufa que poder 
cobi^ar, onde me detinha for^ado, quedefe- 
iavadeixar todas as horas , e por que o nam 
quiz fazer dizes que me Ian^afte della? Cuidas 
mofino efpirito que em ti ha algum poder, e 
nlo entenaes, nem ves que inda que arreban- 
taffes pellas ilhargas,como arrebentafte,nun- 
qua teu defeiopode ter comprimento le nao 
quando eu lho quiz dar, e eftava com o pe no 
eftribo para o fazer ? Ia te elque^e aquelle a- 
cordo quando te mandavao largar o lugar , as 
ignominias , as afrontas, e as pedradas com 
que nam podias andar pellas ruas ? Em fim tu 
te elque^cs por que de nada te envergonhas: 
paflou efla trovoada, e efperas pella outra que 
ha de vir. 

Profeguindo no teu prologo me chamas by- 
pocrita que com capa de fingidas virtudes,e 
modeftia,trato de enla^ar homens, e corrom- 
pelos. O e(cura,e trifte Ely?, fea,e a {cola mo- 
rada de ferpentes venenofas^e bafililcosiefpi- 
rito falfo, e amo finador.: toupeira $ega que 
f6fervede danar, eroer: que vifte em mim 
quete movefle a darme nome que f6 a ti af- 
fenta bem,e he natural? fingirme nunqua fou- 
be em nenhum eftado, e em dizeres que con- 
tinuei tua coropanhia algum tempo com fin- 

D a giraento, 



102 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


j“S Examt 

gimento , mentes como coftumas, porque 
nunqua dife em publico, ne em particular di- 
ferente do que entam entendia,e o fer eu tam 
livre parafalar verdades, foi occafiam de que- 
rerem os teus inquirir mcus ditos, Dizias que 
nam querias nomearme por honra do fangue 
dondepro^edia. quando tu me na6 nomearas, 
entam menomeaxaeu y e crefcera nova honra 
a efie faugiic, com fe contar entre os filhos 
delle, homem taro amigo da verdade, tam li¬ 
vre para adizer, tam conftante em a feguir % e 
que fabe confiar tanto em Deos quef6 com 
efta confian^a poem a proa a todos os con- 
traftres, e tormentas. 

Profeguindo mais dizias que a vifta de min- 
has palavras deviam os bons iudeus rafgar ve- 
ftiduras, como era coftume fazer quando fe 
ouviablaffemaro nomcSando doSnor,pois, 
quando menos, dizia , que todo Jfrael fazia 
culto eftranho, que eu defeiava deftruir, co¬ 
mo deftruio Ghidhon o altar de Bahai • Se 
quando teus pais idolatraram em hum bezer- 
ro (6 torpeza) foi blaffemia cbamarlhes ido- 
latras, ieiatambem blaffemia dizerte agora 
quefazes o que Deos nam quer que fa£as,e 
que eom falfo culto, eftranho, e alheo do que 
pededeti,rompendoe deffazendo fuas leis 
te chegas afeu fervico. O mao que tanto ef- 
timas tua falfa reputacam, e dos teus,que di- 

zcs 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


103 


Dot tradicdes. yj 

zes que blaflemar dos teas maos feitos, he 
blalfemar do mefmoDeos. Asveftiduras fe 
devemcom rezam rafgar, lingoade atorse- 
dor, quando fe te ve dizero que efcreves nef- 
ta tua torpe efcritura , que o entendimento 
humanO nam tem limite cm entender, epode 
enteoder em tudo o que entende' Deos, e na 
cflenjia do mefmo Deos; e outra vez que pn - 
de entender todo o criado . e incria do como 
o entende o mefmo eatlffl jimitas, no 

modo em que podefer. Aqui fe rafgem, pc- 
9 onhento bicho, as veftiduras,pois por le- 
vantar a criatura finita , e limitada em io¬ 
tas fuas opera^oes , affi corporaes, como in- 
telleduaes, yens a dizer taes defatinos que 
a metes noabifmo da infinidade Divina, e 
queresauc pofla entender naqueila incom- 
preheuuvel , tremenda eflencia , tarn ef- 
condida, e apartada de nos, que por ifb fe diz 
morar em a nuve, e efpeflura, por que nam ha 
entendimento bumano que pofla alcan^aia, 
e em chegando a querer por neila os olhos 
defle entendimento, logo le cobrem da nave, 
epormaisque queiram limpalos , nunqua ia 
fe Ihe pode tirar para poder lr por diante com 
a vifta. tambem fe rafgem veftiauras quado di- 
zes que nam he vedado por lei poderle comer 
fangue humano; quetaldiio como efte, tarn 
iuiuriofo contra fua pureza, eperfei^am, nam 
pode (air falvo de algum torpe fero, papagete, 

D j mora- 



104 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


^ Exdm 

morador do mato, ufado, e coftumado a fe- 
meftiantes ferezas > e tarn grofleiro como tu, 
que cam mal entendes a lei como adiante te 
moftrarei. Com eftas, e eftas pois, e outras 
muito piores que nam ^eflas de lah^ar por tua 
disforme boca, fe devem rafgar veftiduras, 
masninguem rafge as fiias quando ouvirdi- 
zer ao mao que he mao; ao idolatra, que ido- 
lacrou : aa injufto, perverfo, fuperfti^iolo, 
que fe apartou do caminhojufto, direito, mi- 
fteriofo. E fe bem he verdade que todas tuas 
coufasmerefiaooutra fepofta, e ia algum te- 
potiveeumaos com que pudebem eqfrear 
outras beftas affi desbocadas como tu, fogei- 
tando agora o pefcofo a lei divina tratareide 
cur ar com palayras as feridas iniuriofas da tua 
mi lingoa. 

E tornando ao prin^ipio, efte homem ou- 
veasmaosalguns cadernos nolTos quetrata- 
vam fobre a alma do homem, e muaando pa- 
lavras lan^ou o que continhao em hum trata- 
do feu, que nos aprefentou diante com a re- 
pofta que nelle fe podera ver. Leitor,que efte 
leres > amigo, ou inimigo, feias prudente, e 
defapaixonado iuiz. Lembrate que quando o 
culpado fe louva, e fala de fi para lan^ar o de- 
feito que mal fe lhe quer por, nam fe louva, 
mas defendefe. Lembrate que fe poem defei- 
tos naquelle que o accufa»nam he por publi- 
^ar deteitos alheos, mas para fazer fabera 

con- 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


105 


Das TraScoes • jf 

condi^amdo accufador, que mcfmo fervc a 
fua defeza. Lembrate finalmente que quan¬ 
to o vi$io he mais feo, e abominavel aos ani- 
mos, e peitos honrados „tanto procuram com 
mais for$a defvialo, e empuxalo de Q, qua** 
do as pe^onhentas lingoas com falGdade 
querem mfanchar,pondo nellesa^a,eabo¬ 
minavel nodoa que nelle fe acha. com eftas 
Iembran^as nam me defeftimaras loirvando- 
me. Nao me dirds que noto, notando. Na6 
dirds que fou irado, irandomc: mas tudo po- 
ras etn feu lugiir, e dirds que a tudo obfiga a 
jufta defeza, e que os mais fan&os, e os me- 
lhores nunqua quizerao confontir erafoas pe- 
foas impoftura'de falfos crimes, e com toda a 
for^a os lancarao de fi. AfTi o fez Iahdcob ac- 
cafado de (eu )ogro lUbao no tnodo que yes. 
Mofeh arguido de fe querer levamar com o 
fenhorio, e mando ufou com os arguidores da 
rlianeira quetambem ves. Affi le vires que 
com for^a me defendo, naaoeftranhei, que 
fobre a honra lido, queeu muito eftimo, e 
fob re empuxar blmpofto vl^ib, que a pode 
manchar,eeu muito abomino.fioque ferds 
prudente. 

Como antes de entrar na repofta he ne^ef- 
facio por o que elle vio de noffa mao fobre a 
alma, fegue o primerio capitulo. 


D 4 Cap, 



106 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 




£xamt 


Cap, l ■ Q*c coufa feta a alma do homem, quern 
afera.fe he mortal , ou fella contra - 
rio immortal. 


P A ft. A avermos de tratar fobre a morta- 
lidade, ou immortalidade da alma do ho- 
mem, he conveniente perguntar primeiro, 
que coufa feia a dita alma j mormente que al- 
guns ignorantes quando a nomeam , pare^e 
que a nguram alguma donzela era corpo, co- 
roo outros no las pintam faindo do purgato- 
rio. Alma do homcm, pois, dizemosque he, 
e fe chama o efpirito de vida com que vive, o 
qual efta no fangue, e com efte efpirito vive o 
honaem.faz fuas obras, e fe move, em quanto 
lhe dura, e nao fe extlngue, faltando natijral- 
metltfe, ou por outro calo violent^ tirado. E 
nao ha outra diferenca entre a alma do bruto, 
e alma do homem, que fer a do homem ra^io- 
nahe a do bruto care^er de rezaoino de rnais, 
naf$er, viver, e raorrer, por tudp (am iguais 
led. comcf diz Selomoh, e nam tern o homem ven- 
* A9 ' tagem do animal na dura^am , por que tudo 
vaidade.afli qde a alma do animal he o feu fan¬ 
gue 6lplfituaao, como diz a lei,e nelle confif. 
te, e eita a dita alma;da mefma maneira a alma 
do homem no fangue,efpiriro vital confifte. 

E fabido que temos que coufa fe chame al¬ 
ma, perguntamos agora quern gera efta alma 
no corpo do homem. e refpondemos que na 

que- 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


107 


Dm, Tradicoes • 

qucftam ha poaca duvida, e he tam claro co? 
mo o fol gerar o homem a alma de outro bo- 
mempor geracam natural da mefma maneirc 
cue hum auimal gera a alma de outro animal 
femelhante a elle. alS que hum elefante gem 
outro elefante tam prudente : a rapofaoutm 
rapofa tam fagaz: o cavalo outro cavalo tam 
forte, obediente, e briofo. O homem pello 
confeguinte gera outro homem ra^onal co- 
mo elle, e de coracam entendido,que he a di- 
feren^a com que do bruto fe apart a, e nam ha 
na materia fobre que duvidar. Poutra manei- 
ra fora a geracam db homem manca, e imper- 
feita contra a ordem. e inftitui^am divtna, 
pella qual em virtude de fiia patavra por meio 
aa femente pofta em cada hua das criaturas, 
todas geram feuriemelhante, e afsi fe confer- 
vam todas as efpofies^e multiplicam.E ao ho¬ 
mem paiticularcoente foidito: £ hendife a tU Gen. 
la Decs > e dije a elUs Deos :gera* mttltiplicai , e 
tnchc* 4 terra. Epor qqe o homem gera em to- 
do feu femelhante , por ifb diz a mefma efcri- 
tura i E jidam viveo cento e trinta annos, egerou 
a fm femelbanca, a fpta imag/rm, Adam rational, 5 ’*‘ 
e priu^epe na terra fobre as criaturas gcroa 
filho 4 ^ua imagem,e femelhan^a em tudo per* 
feito,fem que outrem intervielfe nagera^ara. 

0 mefino diz felomoh quado diz que o naffer 
do home he femelhante ao naffer do animal, 
c en fim a coufa care§e de toda a duvida, e 

D y contra- 



108 


’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


ft Exame 

tontradicaS eonfirmada por rezag, c por lei. 

Os que dizem que as almas fa6 ernes apar- 
tados do corpo, os quais Decs criou por jun¬ 
to , e tem pottos como effl cejeiro, donde os 
inanda meter nos ventres das prcnhei j flam 
ftfcfecem fer onvidos, e fao eftes os fbhhrafldos 
dbfatinos de alguns da vatn gentilidade.ffldig- 
fiosdetodarepofta >que indd agora feguem 
tit Pharifens.Ontros mzemque no vettcre dai 
taefmas prenhes por nova criacao cria Deos 
tftcs entes,confa tarn bem maraviJhofa^ftra- 
ifta de rezam, e lei. E os que efta opinra6 to- 
matam foi por na6 con^ederem fer a alma do 
homem mortal, como erttetidtam fiqnaua fen- 
60 , fe foflegerada por ontro homem, e por 
aqudles mews naturaes qne as almas dos ani¬ 
mats femgetadas. E como eftes tambempor 
fi nam tennao ter* 6 , neth ler, que aiude feu 
penfamento, e fabricada a<frtinba^a6 , warn 
Ra bara que gaftar o tempo em referir fafcs re- 
zbes, e des&zerfens fracos, ecaducosfunda- 
mentos. 

Seguefe perguntar fe a alma do hotn'em he 
mortal, on pelfo cbntrario immortal. E ref- 
pondemos'qoe do que precede fe fkjuaco- 
Jhendo a repofta,e fer a dtta alma mortal, pois 
dffemos que ella confiftia no fangue, elpirito 
vital, o qual primeiro morre, e fe extingne no 
homem do que o mefmo homem morra.e nao 
morrcra o duo homem fe o efpirito vital, al¬ 
ma que 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


109 


Dm Tradicoes • ^ 

ma que o aniraa natn faltara nelle. Provafe 
efta verdade natural, e apalpapa, por infirlffoi 
lugares da efcritura exprefios, c ciaros, fobre 
os quais nao ha tornar repofta. 

E primeiro fe prova,por que nam confta d 4 
lei que a alma do homem feia immortal, ott 
para ella efteia guardada outra vida, pena, ou 
gloria, e era totalmente impoffivel na6 flzet 
a lei de tais coufas mencao, por que nam co- 
ftuma Deos encobrir ao homem o caftigo^in- 
teslho poem muitas vezes diante , para coin 
o medo delle o defviar do mal, como por to- 
daaleife v 6 . 

2. Se prova, por que dife Deos ao homem: 

Em o dia ejne cdmeresda arvore,morrer morreris. Gen. 
Logo o homem foi criado mortal, e fogeito a X l 1 ' 
roorrer: doutra maneira fe fua condi^ao fora 
immortal ,efla im mortal id ade ouvera deter 
vivendo em o corpo, animado efpiritualmen- 
te com o efpirito que Deos Ihe infpirou, mas 
nam devia morrer. Outro fi Ihe dife Deos: 
poo tu,e em poo feris tornado: com que ma- 
nifeftou ao homem feu fim,e Ihe fez faber que j. j* 
potto que creatura tao principal, feus dias te- 
riam numero, e ao que de antes foi, a ifo mc£ 
mo tornaria. 

3. Se prova, por que os Pais nam atende- 
ram a outra vida,nem trataram dos bens della, 
como fenota de fuas palavras. Por que di- 
zendo o Snor a Abraham que feu premio fe- 



110 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


tfo Exams 

ria muito , elle refpondeo : Snor Dess qtts 
if.j. (Ur as a mim, e eu me vou ftm fithos , t efts 
Grinds de minha cafa fern met* herdeiro • Co- 
mo dizer: eu nam fei Snor em que hei de a- 
ver elTe premio grande, ou etn que mocda 
roe has de pagar, pois eu nam tenho filbos, 
que feiam herdeiros defies meus bens. E 
ie Abraham atendera a outra vida , deixa- 
ra o premio grande para ella , e nam tra- 
tara dos bens prefentes. Defies bens tra- 
tou Ifchac na b&u^aaearn.que bendife a la* 
hacob , c fobre elles fe funda alei pon- 
doos por premio dos bons. tambem felo- 
Eed. mob confiderando os males que na vida a 
**conte^iam, e nam vendo outra melhor, jul- 
gou por mais bem aventurado aquelle que 
nao naf^eo. 

Tjil. 4* P° r que efta efcrito: por vent ter a aos 
S8.ii. mortosfar as maravilha ? fe os que carefem de 
vida fe levamarao , louvar aid a ti f por Ventu¬ 
ra contarfeba em a fepultura tua mtfericardia , 
tua vardade em a peraifaS ? por ventura ferd 
canbefida em a efcuridade tua maravilha , e tua 
juflifa em a terra do efquecimento ? Nega aos 
nlortos poder louvar a Deos , e levanta- 
rcnfe para ifo. por que naquella fiia mora- 
da nam ha vida, nem ha efpirito, he a co- 
va terra da perdicao , terra da efcurida¬ 
de ) e efque^iraento , e 16 os vivos podera 

louvar 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


111 


Dm tradicoes. Ct 

louvar a Deos. Nam os mortos lonvaram ao tfil. 
Shot , nem todos os que defcem ao Jtlcncio. E u * # 
nos ( nos que vivcmos ) benedixxremos a Iah . 

Pot ifo neftes, e outros lugares femelhan- 
tes , que cada paffo fe acbao, fe argumen- 
ta da vaidade, e miferia davida humana pa¬ 
ra obrigw a Deos a mifericordia , c com- 
paixam de creatura tana caduca, e tain pou- 
co duradeira : € is de palmos pofefie os mew dias y pfa 
e omen tempo como nada diante de ti ; de verda- |9> 
de rntto vaidade . todo o bomcm tpte efid. De vcr- 
dade como fomvra pajfa o homem , &. Ottve mi - 
nha oracdo Snor , e men clamor , atenta a mi~ 
nhas lagrtmas nao deputes a erelha por qne pere~ 
grino en contigo: iornaleiro como todos mew pap 
Jados . depuia de mim (levanta de mim teu cafti- 
go ) e erfortefermchei antes <jue va , e nao en . E 
em outra parte : E ellc mtpricordiofi per a pro• pfa 
picio fibre a maldade , e naddeperderd. e multi- 7*- 
plicard para depuiar pua ira > e nao cffermrd to- 
dapna Janha. £ Umvronpe <jne carne elks , ven- 
to ejne pajfd, e nao tornard. E Iiob dizia: mew M 
dias fordo ligetros mats <jne a lancadetra do tece- 7. 
dor y e faltar do Pern efperanca ( de cobrar ou¬ 
tros ) lembrate tfne vento minhas vidas , nao 
lornara o men olho a ver bem j nad me verd » 
olho do qne me via ; tew olhos em nim , e nao 
en. fdTtonanmie , epajfon, afft o ane defce d co- 
va nao fnbird . Nad tornara mate * pua 



112 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


6* Exam 

qfq , »em o tonheperd mats o fen layer. E logo 
Otis : Abominei ( como doente enfaftiado) 
mo hei deviver farafempre: fefa de mim ( com 
o acoute) Tor que vas dade os meurittas. O mek 
mo fentido fcgue no cap. 14. e outros muitos 
lugares que fejria longo referir, e quantos pel- 
Jps Pfalmos feachdo efpalhados > quetodos 
conferem, e concluem com dizer que a vida 
do ho mem he breve, e acabada ella namlhe 
fiqua nem fomenre efperan^a de poder tor- 
nar acobrar outra, Torque had arvore efberau - 
fa,fefor cortada, e aittdaferd renovadaafua bro+ 
tadttra mo fcjfard. Se envelhecer na terra fua 
Xast t eem 0 poo morrer feu tronco , com 0 cheiro das 
agoas brotara , efard ramocomo planta. Mas oho - 
mem morrerd , eferd enfraquecido, e morreo oho - 
mem , eaondccllc? Andarao as agoas demur , e 
irio ferd feco % e fecar fe ha. E 0 homem dormio, e 
ndofe levantard, a tenao aver feos nao efpertarao , 
tuao fe levantarao defeu fono. Como dizer: tao 
ijnpoffivel he o homem morto tornar a vi- 
ver, que pod£ram bem faltar ao mar agoas, e 
os rios caudalofos de agoas manantes, e vivas 
poderam (ecarfe , mas o homem nunqua po- 
dera tornar aviver,em quanto ouver £eos,que 
ferd fempre * nam acordard, nem efoertard do 
lono mortal que bua vez dormir. E pot que 
efte fono he.tao pezado, e delle (e acorda tarn 
ffaL devagar»dizia David 30 Suor. Alunua mem 
*3-4* olhospor que a cafo nao dtrrma de mortc. Tor que a 

cafo 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


113 


J>n\ Trddicots. <3 

esfi **> &l* **** wimi%o , TrevaUfi co*tr*efy+ 
TuSnorvesqueoiaijoigo nam deixade me- 
bufcar : ferA fa^U hua nora poder vir a fua£ 
maos.e perecer nellas,alumia pois meus olhoa 
para ver onde ponho os pes,e poder guardar- 
me deDc por que a cafo nam me durma de 
roorte j por que nam acontef a dormir aquclle 
iono de que fe nam acorda ,efe glorie meii 
inimigoae aver preyale^ido contra mim, £ 
afft por tudo fe moftra quemortoohomem 
nam nqua delle coufa, nem tornarA algum dia 
a river. Par qm ahhos do numero virao, epello ca~ 
minbo dondt tuu torn*rei mtdarti, Acabarfe had 
os breves, e contados dias de minha vida,vir£ 
o fim delies,e eu farei aquella iornada comum 
a toda a carne, e andarei aquelle caminho que 
nam tornarei a defandar. 

Os que defendem fer a alma do bomcm im¬ 
mortal coftumam refponder a alguns dos fun- 
damentos que pofemos, fmtando o corpo, e 
dando ^ertas aifHn^o 6 s , as quais affi como 
fao-mal verda deiras, alfi fe caem de feu. Re- 
fpondem pois ao texto ; poo tit ,eem poo firas 
tornado :que alii falou Deos comocorpo, e 
nam com a alma, repofta gra^ofa. Deos fa¬ 
lou com o homem vivo, e efpirituado,e a efte 
tal de darou, e fez faber fua condi^am, e que 
fua vida teria termo,e numero,e o poo deixou 
no pop fern tnais Jhe dar levantamento, o 
que era bem nejeflario para fe poder efperar. 



114 


’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Exustoe 

porifo Adam fe nad Wanton mais avendo 
tamo que dorme,nem fe levaouri cm qoanto 
omundodurar, eouver^cos , quefer4 fern* 
pre. Da mefma maneira refpondem aos ttx- 
tos com que fe prora nad poaerem os mottos 
Iouvar a Deos; a feber, qtie onaspodem lou- 
▼ar corporalmente, como t^ue nifo foffe a di- 
zer algu4 coufa, fe elles efpiritualmente opo- 
deflfetn fazer, pois melhor louvaria o efpirito 
limpo , c line do corpo, do que louvaria efl- 
corporado, e raetido nelle. C nad era verda- 
deiro dizer queosmortos nad louvariamao 
Snor louvandoo o efpirito delies > antes os 
mortos louvavad ao Senhpr. Em vam fefa- 
zia tambem o argumento para obrigar a Deos 
a tercompaixam dohomem , pondolhe di- 
ante a brevidade, e vaidade de feus dias , fe 
morto elle fiquava fua alma, ou feu efpirito, e 
come^ava agozar outravida bemaventurada, 
eterna, e delcanf&da.Mas por que ifto affi nao 
be, dizia, edir4 qualquer affligido: Lemhrate 
que nao but emeu clho deter nor a ver hem . Mais 
refpoudem ao verfo:£ lemhrouje que carne elles, 
efpirito que foffk, euaotor nor a, e outros femel- 
hantrsjqne o efpirito nao tomari dquelle cor¬ 
po mortal, mas tornara 4 corpo immortal* 
Bnam ve que fe o efpirito tornaue a corpo tal, 
tomava melhor, e na fe chamaria efte tornar 
nao tornar. Emfim fao diftinfoens defpropo- 
(itadas,e defvios maltomadospara fugir 4 Ytf 

dad e, 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


115 


Das tradicoes, *% 

dade , a qual como he forte, e poderofa oam 
deixa ven^erfe. Ajuntamos que Abraham ta- 
bem dife: eis or or a comecci a falar a mm Snor , a. 
eMpoo,ecinjA. E feoefpiriro de Abraham era 
immortal, edefpois avia de tornar atomac 
corpo immortal, nam era Abraham p6, e ^in- 
za, nem tal fe podia com verdade cnamar,an¬ 
tes era Abraham hum ente immortal pois feu 
efpirito era immortal, e do corpo, parte me* 
oos prioijipal nao fe devia fazer cafo para to* 
mar o nome.echamarfe poo, por que ascou- 
fas fe denominao da parte que nellas mais do- 
mina, e mais val: no homem o feu efpirito he 
a parte principal, fe efte efpirito he immortal, 
e ente por h, tal fiqua fendo o homem, e nap 
fe chamara poo, indaque* feu corpo o feia, c 
muito mais, fendoo foo atd ^erto tempo, 
conhefeo pois Abraham fua cond^am cadu- 
ca, e corruptivel, e como tal fe vio,avendo de 
falar com Deos, aparelhoufe de humildade, 
confefTando, e pondo diante quanto indigno 
era defta fata. damefma roaneira feentende 
o lugar ipootMy e empoo/erds tornado 5 e nam fe 
podia tal dizer pello homem todo.e vivo.com, 
quern Deos falou, fendo feu efpirito immor¬ 
tal, nem o homem fe tomava em poo. o que 
Selomoh been conhe£eo,e por ilo dife, que o 
home nao tinha ventagem alguma ao animal 
nadurafamporque tudo vaidade. Tor que o ^ ^ 
acontccimtnto dosplbos dot bomens , e oacomeci- 19 « 

E memo 



116 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


V.iO. 




Examt 

mento do animal ,eacontecimento hum a elUs. ajji 
eomo metre eikeotfsi morre a quelle, e effirito hum 
a todos , eventagem do homem mats que o animal 
nenhetafor que tudo vaidade- Os fabulofos de- 
claradores dando faida a efte verfo, dizem: 
tudo vaidade tirado a alma.e aca mui bem efta 
fua repofta com tudo o que naquelie lugar fe 
diz, onde fetrata de moftrar que o homem 
cm fua dura^ao nada he diferent&ao animate 
o mefmo efpirito que tern hum tern o outro,e 
por ifo mefmo, tudo vaidade. tudovai ahum 
Ingot : tndefoi dopoo^e tudo torna aopoo. quern fa - 
be qnee efpirito dosjtlhos dos homens fobe die para 
fima, e o efiirito do jnmento dcfceclle debaixoda 
terra ? pelio que feitas ascontas vim a achar 
que nenhoa coufa meibor ao homem que go- 
zar o trabalho de fuas maos,e que efta he a lua 
parte, nem leva outro fruito de fua creacao. 
E vi quenao bom, que alegrarfe o homem cm fuas 
obras: per que ifo fua parte . Naolhereftaao 
homem outra vida para viver, defta que pre- 
iente tern ha de fazer conta, e cabedal. fe a 
quer guardada.tema a Deos,e euarde feus pre- 
$eitos affi gozard o fruito de leu trabalho. 


Cap* 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


117 


Ddi Tradicoes, 67 

Cap.2.Em qttefe pom os fundaments efne cojlmmaS 
trazjcr par jt os que dizem fer a alma do hometn 
immortal, e aver refurreifao dot mortos com at 
reffoflas a elles • 

O S que apregoao imraortalidade da al¬ 
ma,e refurreicam dos mortos fao como 
homens que querem fubir bul parede lifa fern 
efeada, que nao tendo em que fe pegar, codas 
as vezes que eftendem a mao, e vao para por 
o pe elcorregam, e caera camo pare^eri de 
feus fiindamentos que feguem. 

Primeiroro homem foi criado aimagem 
de Deos: Deos he immortal, logo o homem 
tambcm he immortaT, oil ham fem o homem 
fetfo 4 Imagem de Deos. 

2. A criacamdo homem nam foi feme- 
lhante d criacam dos outros axrimais,€ Deos 
infpirou nelle efpiraculo dc.uda ,logo efte 
clptraculo he immortal* 

3. Deo$ dife a Adam: em odia que come- 
res da arvore morreras 1 fe Adam nam come* 
fa nam morrera: logo immortal foi criado. 

4. Mofeh dife a Peos ; fe nam perdoas a 
eftepovo rifeame do teulivro que eferevefter 
nefteliyro fao cfcritos os que ham de viver 
vida eterna, e eftes fam os que ?irem na terra 
dos viventes, 

£ 2 


j. Se- 



118 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


6% Exame 

f. Semuel veo falar a Saul: logo os moN 
tosvivem,efala 5 . 

tf. Eliahu foi tornado ao £eo , e vive. Eli- 
fah refuf^itoumorto. 

7. Em muitos Plalmos le le que os maos 
ferao deftruidos da terra, cos bons fiofef^c- 
fam : logooutravida he ne^eilatio que aid, 
por que nefta os maos floref^eniL, e os bons 
padefgem ; os maos nao fad ca&igadas ,nem 
osjuitos premiadog* 

Vfa,\6 S. Elu efcrito : For que naddeixards mink* 
alma em afiepuUura : nao deixarjUaim .mfir** 
Tfal. cordiopi ver a cova. Item : quam grande 0 tea 
31.to. hemqueefiondejieparacs quetetemem. 
itfah. 9 • -demo iviviraa. tens mortos : e lo- 

26. go mats : a terra defunttos lanford. Item: rtf 
ltcbez. eH afro v0 JJas fipulturas y e farei fubir a vosde 
£«6* 2 * wjfas JepmtStas pova meu. Item: ecu conbefo 
is. 15. meu remidor vivo , e derradeiro fibre 0poo efia- 
rd , e deffotsJju*. nuuha pdtc trilharcm cfla, de 
minha carne veret a Ideas ^ 0 qual eu hei de ver a 
mim , e mem olhos virao , e nao alheo . enfra- 
quecerao mens rins em 0 meu peo . Tambera 
T3imd prophetizou da refurrei^am dos mor¬ 
tos. 

Ao primeiro argumento, que o horoem 
nam feria fcito & imagem de Deos fe nam fbf- 
ie immortal : refpondemos que he doudi^e 
querer que o bomem feia imagem de Deos 
em todo, e por todo : afsi por que Deos he 

om- 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


119 


Vat tratUcocs, 

omnipotence, nem por ifo o ho mem jfua ima- 
gem he ommpocente: doucra maneira fe ou- 
▼eflemos deconfiderar o homem imagemde 
Deos em tal for^a que feia retrato feu, feria 
ne^eflario que o homem fofle Deos, e Deos 
nampodefazeroutro femelhanteem tudoa 
G melhao: e a major fua grand eza he ier tal, 

3 ue die mefmo comrtodo feu poder nam po- 
e fazer outro feu igual j por que implica ier 
Deos, e poder fer feito , ctiado, ou gerado. 
He poiso homem imagem , efemdhanca de 
Deos em afg$i Ctmftr. ftt tftrt fbmbra de fua 
faBedoria«jiaoL be a mefraa fabedoria. po- 
defta na terra lobre as creaturas, ehequafi 
femelbante a Deos, mas nam podefta como 
Deos. afsi nam he imagem de Deos na im- 
morralidade , que effa he propria de Deos, e 
Jiara do homem. For vent/tra como d/at do ho¬ 
mem os teut diat ? for ventura tent annos como dias 
dovarao? nam poderaliob dizer ifto fe o efpi- 
rito do homem fora immortal como Deos, e 
eterno era o homem*. 

Ao fegundo: acria^ao do homem nam fbi 
fcmelhante & cria^am dos outros aniraaes, e 
Deos infpirou nelle efpiraculo de vida, logo 
efte efpiraculo he immortal. refpondemos 
que nada ata o argumento,e fe tira mala con¬ 
sequents, por que nam fefeguequeoefpi- 
rito que deu vida ao corpo fem alma de Ada 

£ 3 fofle 



120 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


yo Exam 

fofle efpirito immortal; antes pelio logir fe 
moftra quc o mcfino efpirito de vida tern os 
animai s que tem o homem>por que na criacao 
dellesdileDeost TroduxA a terra alma viventt^ 
enacria^amdo homem defboisde iaanima- 
do com o efpirito vital que lne infpirou: e foi 
0 hokum par alma vivente. afsi que a mefma pa- 
lavra vfa em hum lugar que no outro, e como 
diz felomoh : efpirito ham a todos. Nam tirar 
Deos da terra o homem na companhia dos 
brutoSj como bem podera fazer,foi afTaz con- 
veniente, e que nam faifle na manada delies o 
homem podeftador fobre elles, rational, e 
parti^ipante da fabedoria divina , e affi do 
modo de fua cria^am podefle aprendera fer 
tambem diferente em iua vida como avia lido 
nella. outras diferen^as fe aebam tambem na 
mefma cria^am, e todas para doutrina do ho¬ 
mem. hum l6criou Deos, e nam muitos,elhe 
deu hua molher,que tirou delle mefmo. todas 
eftas coufas o enunao a viver, mas nada tem 
que fazer com fer mortal, ou immortal. Se 
Adam eftivera vivo quSdo Deos lhe fez entra- 
ro efpirito devida, poderamos dizer que efte 
efpirito era coufa feparada, e apartada do ef¬ 
pirito animal com que Adam ia vivia: porlm 
Adam nam fe movia antes de lhe entrar o ef¬ 
pirito vital, logo o efpirito vital que entrou 
em Adam foi a alma animal, e a mefma alma 
animal foi alma rational, e toda he a mefma 

coufa 



■URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


121 


Das 7 radipoes. 7s 

coa& de tal maneira, que faltando no bomem 
S alma animal, logo faltoo nelle a rezao, e diA 
curib, a que chamao alma rasional. Louvarei pfiL 
aoSnor emtftimhavida:contorts a meuDecsem I 4 6 * 
qtunto/ti. que defpois que eu nam for ia nam 
poderei cantar, SairdJets effirito, tor my d afua 
terra(totnati o bomem a terra que h e)emo dia 
ejfepereferaofern penfamentos, No dia de.o ho- 
mem morrer acabaram todos feus diicuxlos, 
iamais nam ra^io^inari. Ecclefiaftes itudo o Cop. *■ 
que acbar ttta mao parafazer em tua fortalezA fa- v ' 1 °' 
xe: por quo udo ha obra> e rapiofiuio, e fcienpia , e 
fahedoriaema fepulturapara ondetuvas, Emo* 
dia de morrer o homem tudo acaba com elle. 
mortal, efioito foioefpirito que Deos Ihe 
deu, nao immortal, e inbnito, e por ifo mor- 
re, que aliis nam morrera, Iiob: fe pofejfefibre c *p. 
ellefeucoracdo ,fejucffirito , efeu effiracnloreco - * 4 ' 4> 
Iheria afi. morrer ia toda a came juntamente % $o 
bomem cm poo fcria tornado. O mefmo dosou- 
tros animais. recolherds feu efpirito, cff>irarao> e tf* 1 ' 
afeupofe tor nordo. De maneira que recolhen- 
do Deo*, tirando Deos, fazendo ^eflar no 
bomem animal ra^onal, como em qualquer 
outro, que ra^onal nao he, feu efpirito, cada 
bum defies feextingue, e acaba. Alguns di- 
zemporafear efta verdade que tao bomfi- 
qua lendo hum cachorro como hum bomem; 
e mere^em eftes fer privados com dor dofer 
que Deos lhes deu, pois tao mal o conhe^em, 

E 4 eefti-* 



122 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


y% s*4m 

t eftimadqu£de ienhoresdo cachorrofcfa* 
stem feus lrmaos, f6 por qae ihes nam den 
Deos vida para fempre, como qae ie lhes 
fofle deredor de algua cou(a; e melhor dizia 
o oatro no feu romanyeiro 


Mfftd me farm mi moire 
If ms fttde amir Imfo 
JL*qm el cieUetiio m grid* 
HeUpuUis itierecbe. 


Ao ter^eiro: Em e did qm comer es eUdrve- 
re morrer amrerds: fc Adam nam comcra nad 
snorreraj logo immortal foi criade. dtzemos 
qae be (alio o argumento, e qae nam ie fe- 
gue qae fe Adam nam comera nam roorrera, 
mas ieguefe qae fe Adam nam comera nam 
morreraaquella morte com que Deos o ame- 
acou. iba mdfle natural ,e a feu tempo mor- 
rqiiatitfnrpitm morrerii morte-antc^ipa- 
daj? or rezam de paflar apre^eito* affidtaa 
let:oqaecotaetertalcalo morrer morrerii. 
E por ventnra nam hade morrer fe aquelle 
calo nam coraeter ? fi por certo ha de raor- 
xer * mas nam ha de morrer aqoeila morte 
por aquelle caio araea^ada. Iecbeachel: Sefe 
converter e feccaior de ft* caminho , vivo m , dit 
oSenher qm hm tmrrtr a. Nao roorrera a mor¬ 
te a tnea$ada. nam o matarei antes de cum* 
prir feus dias. nam o matarei com morte mi 

aos 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


123 


DdStrdMcecs* ^ 

a os peccadores devida. afG fe Adam nam 
peccara,nam ojulgara Dcoscomoo julgou, 
q&e fe logo o nao caftigou com o juizo da 
morte, emeprorogpu a vidapor merce x fei 
c6fi"ft'fl?f0Cafgp*. o quandobem folic que 
AdSftfft! criaao Immonal (nam o rooftra ad 
dafraqucza de ieucimento,que decorner, 
e beber tinha ne^emdade ) dc baixo decon- 
difam fe guardafle o pre^eito que lbe foi pod 
to, na bora que o paflbu perdeo aimmortali- 
dade, e affi morreo, que fe immonal era nam 
peccando » immortal ouveta. dcvivct cor* 
poralmente, peccou : morreo, e paflou a im* 
roortaiidade. mas averdade he que mortal, e 
corruptivel foi criado. 

Ao quarto: Mofeh dife a Deos: rifiame Frf rf 
*fora eUtenUvro que efcrevefie: nefte livro fad i*. 
efcritos os que had de viver vida eterna, 
c eftes fam os que vivem na terra dos vi- 
ventes. dizemos que tudo fe refere 4 vida 
prtfentc , e nam a ourra que nam ha. afsi 
Mofeh dife a Deos que o rifcafle do feu li¬ 
vro ; a faber, do livro. em que efcrese os 
bons para os premiar nefta vida , fazendo 
flies cumprir feus dTas em paz, e feli^ida- 
de. ( Nam entendemos que tenha Deos 
algum livro de lembran^a , mas que a lin- 
goagem he accomodada ao nouo modo 
para moftrar que tern Deos conta com o 

£ y mun- 



124 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


^4 Exam 

xnuodo p«ra o premiar, e caftigar .) Defte Ii-* 
vropoisdife MofehaDeos queo, c 
foi como dizer, matame, talhame antesde eu 
ter comprido o meucurfo. Se nao vcioo per- 
dam defte povo nao quero vida. da mefina 
Mm. maneiraquefalououtravez : Efisfsi t»fa- 
»i. 1 j. a gfffff . maume rogo maamio, fe dchei gra- 

ca em tern olbcs,e nao vei* o mat mol. Huavezte 
pedi Snor , quc me matafles zelando o bem 
defte povo, por que nao queria eu vidapara- 
veroieuraal: agora to pc^o fegunda, zelan- 
doomeubem, por que fecom tanto trabalho 
*u hei de viver, nao me he agradavel ter vida. 
Gm. affi falou tarn bem Ribcba a Ifchac dizendo 
• 7 * que Ihe era avida pezada, enao queria viver, 
le Iahacob ouveue de tomar molher das filhas 
da terra. Nao pedia Mofeh a Deos que o rif- 
cafte do livro em que eftavao eicritos os que 
aviam de viver vida eterna, e perfeitamente 
ditofa (fetal vida avia) para fer lau^ado ,ccf- 
crito em o numero dos inimigos de Deos 
coudcbados a eterno mal, que efta peti^am 
fora louca, e defefifada. 

Terra dos viventes fe chamacfte mundo, 
em que andamos, erivemos, Terra das vfdas, 
a faber. terra em que fe achao muitas vidas, 
por que nella vivem muitos, e afli nam he ter¬ 
ra de hulfbvida. terra dos monos , terra da 
perdicam fe chama a cova, po$o,G!en$io.ter- 
*ade cfcuridade, e fombra de morte, onde a 

luz 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Dm trndkdes. Tf 

Job nto entra cbro6 no la reprefimea Iiob.deC 
ta terra das Tidal le faz muitas vezes men£a6 
cm Iechezchel, e cada pafito cm muitosFlal* ^ 
mos. Andnrei nsfaces a* Shoremn term dnsvio 
tins: livrou o Snor minba alma da tnorte»e das iic, 
mads daquelles que a bufcavam para tiran&a, 
porifovivirei, eandarei diaoce de Deos na 
terra das vidas. empos ifo ferei agradef^ido 
pellas merges que conhe^o re^ebcr de fua 
mam ,e affi offere^erei facrificio pella (aiide* 
Vnfo defohncoes levnntnrei* em nome do Snor in - 
voenrei. Mew votos no Senhor pngorei, &• precio* 
fnem os olbos do Senhor n tnorte dos fens boms • 
Nao eftiraao Suortao poucoavida dos ieus 
bons,quelhenatn feia mui cara fua mortem 
porilonadosentrega fa^iknente nas maons 
do inimigo. e eu com efte motivo, e em final 
de fazimento de gramas* Mens votos no Senhor 
pngurei dsnnte noorn todo fen povo. E affi fiqua 
moftradoquaisieiamosefcritos no livro do 
Snor, e qual a terra das vidas. 

Aoquinto: Semuelveo falar a Saul: logo 
os mortos vivem, e falam: refpondemos que 
nam veo Semuel falar a Saul, nem os mor¬ 
tos vivem, ou falam jeo que (e efcreve ^erca 
dla vinda, e fala no primeiro livroque fein. fifw 
titula de Semuel he tudo contrario b doutrina 2g * 
que ic tira da lei, e lugares allegados, pellos 
quaisfe moftra que os mortos nam vivem, 
nem fabcm de aiguS couia como aquelles 

que 



126 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


j6 Earn* 

que ia na6 fedo a tal efcrirara contra* 

ixa’4 verdadeira doutrina da lei * he fbr^a que 
ieia falfa, e commentada corao outrage (eri¬ 
cas , e refebidas pellos Pharifeus, e reprova- 
das pellos Saddu^eus. Enostemos a lei por 
gala, e fundamento principal, e por ella ave- 
mosdejulgar,e apartaro falfo doverdadei- 
co. A(si nos bianda a lei que nam creamos 
so Propheca, ou fonhador que com falfos 
milagres, ou apparen^as nosquizer lew A 
adora^ara de dcofes eftranhos, que naoco- 
nhe^emos, nemalei nos enfinou a conhe^e- 
los, ecomo fundamento firme potto nella 
oos manda defprezar feus firraes. Omefmo 
nos da regra para conhe^er o Propheta fal¬ 
fo que cm noroe do Senhor- falar, fe nam a- 
conte^er a couft que elle prophetizou, que 
tudo he avizarnos, e fazemos a cautelados 
contra a mali^ia dos homens, que nao $ef- 
fao de inventor, e efeudrinbar maldades, con¬ 
tra as quais eftA feguro o que fe acolhe A 
verdade da lei. pois como feia doutrina no¬ 
va dizer que os mortos falao, e fe levantam 
to ebamado de quern os chama, coufa que 
aleinamconhe^eo, antes vedou efte modo 
dechaxnar por elles como gentilico,evao. 
a eferitura, ou conto de quern nos diz que 
Semuel veo falar a Saul he ne^eflario que 
iemdemora feiade nos lan^ada, e reieitada 
fumes na doutrina, e verdade da lei. E por 

9 erto 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


127 


Dm Tradicoes. jf 

certo que quem olhar para o conto, achari 
logo ndle fua vaidade. por que he de labef 
quern empreftou a Semuel aquella capa pa- 
ra fe cobnr :quem lbe dcu o corpo, e aqueW 
las barbas brancas, que de poucos dias d^a- 
vao metidas de baixo da terra, fe ellequan- 
do fahio defte mundo foi nu com feu efpiri* 
to parao lugar onde eftava,e feu corpo fi- 
quou qua na terra, tambem Semuel lbe dife 
que ao outro dia eftaria com elle, e affi tarn 
bom lugar teria Saul, de quern o Senhor fe 
apartou, c fe fez inimigo, como alii (edfzi 
Como tinha Semuel mimofo leu. Em 6m fe 
ha iUuibes, e algud arte para engaoar, e mof- 
trar corpos phantafticos ( eude talartenam 
fei ) algura engano deftes poderia aconte- 
^er fizefle a mother malfeitora a Saul; po- 
rlm cuidar que a alma de Semuel veftida* era 
novo corpo, e habitos lhe veo falar, he mats 
quevanilfimo, doutrina falfa,geutilica, vam. 
Iefahiahu : Folios vivos ( fe perguntard) aos Cap. s. 
mortos ? como dizer, mais fabe, mais val, me* VA »- 
lhor he o vivo que o morto j que bem pode 
fazer o morto ao vivo ? pois pellos vivos fe 
hade perguntar aos mortos ? Selomoh: For Eetk, 
queocdo vivo melhor que o lea* morto. por qtse 
os que vivemfabem qtse baode morrer : e os mor¬ 
tos nao fabem dgtsma coufa , e nao mais a dies 
premio; por atteao efqnepimentofoi entregefua mo- 
moria. tamoem o amor delles^tambemo odio delies , 

tambem 



128 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


ys Examt 

tambem 4 inve 't'a delUs id pereceo: epmrtenaXd eU 
ks mats pars fempreem tttdo oeptt Je fax, debdixt 
do'fit. O tnorto acabou, nam tem mais conta 
com o que fe faz no mundo. E tam pouca 
conta tem que como diz Iiob nem de feus 
itf. filfios fabe. farfibaopoderofosfens filhos, e not fa- 

* 4 ‘ herd, e enviltfeerao , e nam atentard d elles . pois 
9 " u * fe o homem morto he efte, fe dormindo efU 
feu foao deque nad acordar£: envergonhenfe 
os fabulofos que andam com os mortos as co- 
ftas, e nos querem perfuadir que appareyera 
de novoaos vivos, e lbes fervem de confe- 
Iheiros. 

Ao feifto: Eliiabu foi tornado ao ceo, e vi- 
ve. Elifah refuf^itoU morto. Seia embora que 
eftas coufas alii aconte^elTem t nada fe tira del- 
las para a immortalidade da alma,antes fe mo- 
ftra que feDeos quiz conlervar Eliahu vivo 
para o mandar pregar aos homens,foi por que 
le morrefe nam podia tornar ao mundo, faluo 
fe Deosocriafle de novo como criouo pri- 
rociro homem. dilatoulhe pois avida (fe affi 
be) mas nad o fez immortal, pois no cabo de 
fazer fua embaixada ha de morrer.(fe ouvire- 
mosos Saddu^eus fobre efta eferitura, fabe- 
reraos o que nos dizem della, que de verdade 
pare^e pouco ne^eflaria efta guarda deEliiabu 
vivo, e nam fe limitou o poder de Deos para 
nam levantar bons efpiritos cada vcz que elle 
quizer, dos quais fe urya para feusembaixa- 

dores.) 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


129 


Dot tradicoes, ff 

jfores.J Tambem o mono que refuf^itou Eli¬ 
jah com Je eftender fobre el!e,jantando a bo- 
ca com fuaboca, eas mads com fiias maos 
(galante modo dc fazer milagres t e refufijitar 
monos: nao obra Deos defta maneira ) nada 
faz ao propofito. efle mono a quern Deos (fe 
aJfi foi) tornou a dar por mer$e novo efpirito, 
tomou a morrer, nem refuf^itou para vida dc 
Jempre, que nos importa logo fiia refurrefoad 
para moftrar immonalidade de que tratamosfc 
E com tudo avcr& muito que dizer fobre aver- 
dade defies milagres que Deos nuoqua fez em 
outro tempo , nem coftumou matar homens 
paradefpois os refuf^itar. Eno fegundo do 
Semuel feld que refpondeo David a feus fer* 
Tos,que fe maravilhara&de o ver comer quad- 
dofoube da monc do filbo pot que de antes 
ieiuou. Em quanto indaomofovivia wuci s e 
chore*,por que dijc quernfabefife apiadarA oSmor 
de mint, e vivird o mofo f eager a olio morreopars 
qi neiaeuiciuarei? por venture poderei tor nolo a 
vida mats i eu von para elle, cede nab tornardpa* 
ra minu Outro milagre fe conta de Elijah que 
fertopare^e milagre Jem propofito, e defne- 
fefiano j e milagres ta6 baftos, equafi mini- 
neiros nao coftomaDeos fazer. foi eileem 
companhia dos filhos dos Prophetas a corral 
lenhaao Iarden, e cabio o ferro do machado 
a hum no rio, oqualfelhe a marguron, e ma- 
gooudizendo : ahah Senhor men que o pod* cm* 

preftado . 



130 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


|o Sxdme 

prefiado. E iao^ou Elifah hum pao nagoa,e na- 
dou o fcrro, e afsi o rccolhco outra vez o que 
o perdeo, c peeou nelle. milagre fobre o ter¬ 
ra de hum macnado tarn efcufatfo, e tarn pou- 
co ne^dlario que mal fe poder4 crcr. Hale 
poisde fabcr que entre os livros que os Pha- 
rifeus nos vendem, ou dad por verdadeiros ha 
muicos que os Saddu^cus reprovam > e dizem 
contra lua verdade. eu nam lei p 6 r o dedoem. 
todos quaisfeiam por nam aver communica- 
do com os ditos Saddu^eus; pordm fern efta 
commuuica^ao pello foieico das coufas fe po- 
de bem alcazar que livros, ou que parte delles 
devam fer reprovados, ou re^ebidos. E o que 
me affirmo be, que lam eftes homens tarn lof- 
pcitofos, ou por tnelhor dizentam pouco ver¬ 
dadeiros em fiias coufas, que a eferitura que 
nam tiver em lua abona 9 ad outro teftemunbo 
mais que o feu.fiquard mui duvidola,e lolpei- 
tola 5 e fe tiver contra fi teftemunbo de outros 
Judeus que liia verdade negem, nenhuro ere- 
dit5 mere^er^ afsi os que amarem a verdade, 
e defeiarem a^ertar, devem procurar com to- 
da lua for^a inteirarfe do que dizem os Sad- 
du^eus fobre a verdade dos livros que os Pha- 
rilensquizeram meter na conta dos lagrados, 
e dtvtnos porque defta maneira nam vivam, e 
ieiam enganados com a falfidade que nelles fe 
alha^e poflam vir ao verdadeiro conhe^imen- 
to f que o credito que le da ajeferituras.menti- 

rofas, 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


131 


Das tradicocs . 8 1 


rofas, e vans coftuma impedir,'e a talhar* 

Ao fetimo: em muitos Pfalmos fe le que 
os maos feram deftruidos da terra, e os bons 
florefeeram j logo outra vida he ne^eflario 
que aia, por que nefta os maos floref^ein^e os 
bons padcfecm: os maos nam fam caftigados, 
nem os juftos premiados. rcfpondemos que 
he verdade que nos Pfalmos fe Id da dcftrui- 
9 am dos maos, e florefeimcnto dos bons, e he 
doutrina verdadeira fundada na mcfma lei; 
porem negamcs o que feguc,que os maos nao 
lad caftigados nefta vida , nem os juftospre- 
miados j por que tal dito como efte, he dir ei- 
tamente contrario d verdade, e fundamento 


da lei, que nam publica outra coufa, que di~ 
zer: faze bem por que feia bem a ti, e a teus 
filhos defpois de ti« Torque eu 0 Senhor DeosE***- 
teu,forte, ciofi, que vijito 4 maldade dos pais fibre l0, ** 
os filhos, fibre os terceiros , e fibre os quartos a os que 
me aborrecem . E quefafo mifir icordia a milbarcs, 
aos que me a mao j e aos que guardao metis prccci - 
tos, De mancira que na vida prefente paga 
Deos ao mao em fua cabeca, e na de feus 


filhos, e defeendentes, e tambem paga ao 
bom,fazendo bem a fua femente quau em in- 
finito, como pagou a Abraham, cuia femente 
poftoquemuitasvezes provocou aira divina 
detal maneira, que mere^eo fer conlumida, 
ou ao menos de todo repudiada, toda via por 
fer femente fua, e guardar fua palavra,nam ti- 

F rou 



132 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


ga Exam 

rou della fua miferlcordia como de outras 
gentes, antes fe lembrari de reftitula a me- 
Ihor eftado , refpeitando aos mefmos pais , e 
Dm. concerto com elles ^elebrado. E faberdsqtte o 
7 ’ 9 * Senhqr Dm teu, elle Dm, Deos fiel, que gttarda 0 
concerto , c a mifericordia aos qtteo a mao , e que 
guar duofetes mandametos ate a millefima geracao t 
e quo paga aos qtte 0 aborrecem em fteas faces , para 
faz/r perder a tUe: nao dilatord ao qne 0 aborrece , 
emfuatfapespagardaeUe• Emiuas fa$es paga 
Deosao perverfo: rram lbe dilataeo caftigo 
por muito tempo, he doutrina da lei: he dou- 
trina v^rdadeira debaixo da qual militamos. 

Agora, fe muitas vezes veraos floref^er os 
maos,e que nam levam fen caftigo tarn prefto, 
oudamaneiraque nos queriamos: devemos 
cuidar que a noffa vifta ha muito curta para 
alcan^ar asordens de Deos, e o profundo de 
fua fabedoria com que. o mundo governa. 
Deos oftia os corals, ve, e fabe o que cada 
hum mere9e, e conforme ao que mere^e lhe 
paga: nos pello contrario olhamos o de fora, 
e julgamos to mo cegos. Deos fofre, por que 
nam defeia deftruir o homem, e antes quer 
Go. que fe couverta. Tor que naojperfeitaa maldade 
1, x6 ’ doSmoreo ategera . porem iele nao converte, 
TfuLjk he 90*0 que feu caftigo lbe ha de vir.Sefenao 
0,1 3 * converter ,fua effada agoford:fen arco arrnott , e 
aparelhon a elle. efex. aparelbar a elk vafos de mor* 
te tftsasfetas contra os perfegmdoret obrard. E nos 

entende- 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


133 


Das Tradicoes. # 8 $ 

entendemos que por que o caftigo ao noflo 
pare^or tardou^ia o mao fiquou fern clle. pois . 
dcvemos feber, que oeftado felfee dos maos 
nao he fegano>ames fe continuarectn (uanaal- 
dade lhes poderaos efperar fua ^erra queda. 
pi o mat arreifado, e que lancava tamos como Ion- ?fa. 37 
10 verde. Epajjou, e tie nam elle,e bufeei 0, e nam * J • 
foi achado. Iftovemos cadapaflo acontefer. 
talha Deos , e corta a muitos quando cnidatn 
que come^atn a viver. vifita com varias do 
en^as, e males, dd fome, cfd pobreza, abaix.i 
os altos , e calas ricas poem pello cha6 de tal 
maneira, que ordinariamentc nos efpantdraos 
de ver homens-, e filhos delles, que em outro 
tempo ia conhe^emos. pois ifto he paifar o 
mao: ifto he bufealo , e nam achar delle final, 
como tambem fao pafladas monarchias gran* 
des,deque Deos hum tempo feferviopara 
caftigo de outras gerites , e todos por fim re- 
^eberam fiia paga, einda re^eberdm, que 
Deos vive, vd, ejulga o mundo* cada dia, e 
nenhua outra coufa vemos, fe nam |uizos feus 
na terra,dos homens mal conhe^idos. Do 
bom, e jufto pello contrario fe diz: moco fui, 
tambemenvelheci,enamvijuftodesemparado r e * 
fuafemente bufearpao, am que nefta vida paga Prw * 
Deos ao bome ao mao: eis ao jufto em a ter- u * 5t * 
rafeparard quanto mats ao mao , epeccador. ne- 
nhutn feia tam nef^io, e louco que outra cou¬ 
fa cuide, e &9a hua conclufam tam defafifoda 

F 2 contra 



134 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


$4, Sxdme 

contra averdade, e fundamento da lei., por 
quefequizer expritnentar em fua cabe^a a- 
char&a inteireza defta verdade, coraofoio- 
brigado a confefTar ^erto Poeta, principal en. 
tre os da fua na^am^ue pare9e tevc enveia ao 
caminho dos maos, entendendo que para el- 
les nam avia caftigo, e diz a {ft 
Os bons vi fempre pajfar 
No mttndo graves tormentor, 

Epara mats me effantar, 

Os maos vi fempre nadar 
£mmar de contenfitmentos. 

Ctsidando al cart fat ajjim 
O bent too malordenado> 

Em mao, mas foi cafligado, 
tfttefoo para mint 
uinda o mttndo concertado. 

Louco faomem , e fam todos os que cuida- 
remqueaos maos aconte^e fempre bem.hum 
dialhes. podcr 4 aconte^er, mas o fim delies 
para deftru^atn.pello contrario aos bons po- 
derd algum dia virmal, ou por que Deos os 
<]uerprovar,ouporque nam ha homemtam 
jufto que nam mere^a algum caftigo, porem o 
fim delies para paz. Abaixe logo o temerario 
juizo do homem,ero cujos olhos muitas vezes 
he bom aquelle que nos de Deos he mao Jium 
pouco as azas de fua imprudente prefun^am, 
com que quer tomar o lugar deDeos,e fazerfe 
com die iuiz em a terra; e afsi quado algumas 

coufas 



■URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


135 


Das tradieois . 

coufas vir aconte9er, cuio fegredo naS alcan- 
9a,dcixeas a Deos jufto iuiz que o mundo go- 
yerna com alta fabedoria levantada rauito da 
Humana, por qne inda que muito fe canfe nao 
poder& alcan^ar.Selomoh : £ vi todaaobrade EccU. 
Deos,quenaopoderd ohomem achara obraquefc 8 -‘ 7 « 
fax. de baixo do fol: por amor da qnahrabalhard o 
homem por bitfcar,e nao achard ,e tamhem fe dtfer o 
fab to ef ue qnenfaber , nao poderaachar. Somente 
faiba o hom^ta, e conhe^a , que Deos he iuiz 
na terra , e nella com jufta balan^a premia os 
bons , e caftiga os maos-* e quando vir Hebei 
jufto pere^er nas maos do perfido Kain, cuide 
fe efta morte graftgeou o pecado de feu pai, e 
apreda atemer a Deos que o caftigo dopecca- 
dor eftende atd feus filhos.e fe bem efta mate¬ 
ria he tal que convidava ahum longo difcurfo, 
be ne^efTario atalhar por ehegar ao fim,e baf- 
ta fobeiamente o que moftramos , para annu- 
la^ao do argumeto eontrario,fundado cm fal- 
fa apparen^ia contra fid doutrina da lei. 

Ao oitavo.* efta efcrito •* por qne naodetxarat 
minha alma em a fcpuhttra :nao deisards o ten bom 
ver a cova.'\teva:qHam grande oteu bem que efcon- 
dejie para os qnete refpondemos que na- 

da ao propoifitOje o fentido do primeiro verfo 
he efte. Nas deixaris minha akna vir a poder 
de meus inimigos,e que eu por fua mao delles 
def9aa cova. Alegravafe David de ter o Sen- 
hor em fua guarda, e dizia que debaixo de 

F 3 feu 



136 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


%6 Exame 

Tea abrigodormia feguro, nem temia que o 
mataflem.nao quer dizer quc defpois de mor- 
to tiraria fua alma da fepultura,que ifo encon- 
tra o que legue: ndo darts o teuoom ver a cova . 
Nem quer dizer que nun qua avia de ver a co¬ 
va , que a cova todos a hao de ver, e nenhutn 
vivo cfcapard de fuas maos. quehomem vivira, 
e rum verd a morte i livrard fua alma da mam da 
cova i mas quer dizer que Deos oam deixaria 
fua alma em perigo de morte, nem confenti- 
riacomodizemos, por mam dos maos que a- 
bufearao yir elle a,c9va,como em outros pfal- 
mos fe coniolava. 

O fegundo verio: quam grande o ten hem que 
eJcondefUfara os que to temem: por ii efta decla- 
rado com o que £?gu©: o Irrafie ms quo eSferam 
cm ti diante os fUhosdoibomens. de maoeira que 
dianfeo&filhos dos bomens na vida prefentc 
obra Deos efte bem* E que bem he ? cfconde - 
loshas em o cfcondide datuasfafes dos alevantame - 
tos do home,cfconde Los has em a ttn dqda conteda das 
lirtgoas. tu lhes fer&s amparo, e abrigo contra 
toaaaperfegu^arados bomens, trei£oes,e 
maldades,deque dava ao Snor gramas a velo li- 
vrado, bens aconte^idos nas races dos filhos 
dos bomens de prefeme,outros bens nam fo- 
nharemos j e fe fonharmos, fonbos ferad. 

Ao nono fobre o lugar de lefahiahu : vivi- 
ram tens mortos , &. reipondemos que nam fala 
o propheta dos verdadeiros mortos, dos que 

acaba- 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


137 


Dm Tredict**. 87 

acabaram o curio naturaldavida, nem diz qoe 
cffet fe levant ariao ; mas os mottos de que fa- 
la, fao o do to de lirad efpalhado pellas ter¬ 
ras , e ncllas quad conrado por mono, e tam 
mono one mnguera cuidadelle que tornari 
mail a let gente, mas fempre iazerinochao, 
abatido, vil, mirradp , e feco, da mefma ma- 
neira que delle fiila por idoelhan^a o prophe¬ 
ts Icchezchd no cap. 57. onde declara que os 
olios fecos eraoacafade Ifrael, refpeito de 
que elles diziao: [teartips noffos ejfos , t ferefto 
iojfe effierifafomej telbsdos a moi.c conforme a 
efte fentido diz: eu tn ebrireivojfiu fepnltwM>t 
fertifmhir avos de vofdj fefulturAs.Naa dix que 
tiraria os verdadeiros monos das covas, mas 
os titos ailemelhados a monos ajuntaria das 
terras,e lugares onde eftaram lan^ados, e erao 
como fuas fepulturas, relpeico de feu eftado,e 
os tornaria a terra de Ilrael. affi que hum lu- 
gar he iemelhante ao ourro, e ambos falam 
parabolics,e nam propriamente, E inda por 
major delara^am repitiremos atras bum pou- 
co. Do prin^pio at6 o fim trata aquelle capi- 
tulo do ajuntamento de ifrael,e moftracomo 
o Sfior caftiga diferentemente a outras gen¬ 
res do que ocaftigar& aelle. Por ellas diz: 
Mtrtos nee vivireo , defunties mam fe Uvamatam. 
for unto viJitA&ey e defir mile a elles , e ferdefle to - 
dn a manori4 delies. querendo dizer que as gen¬ 
res, caftiga o Suor, e muda feu eftado de raa- 

F 4 neira 



138 


'URIEL DA COSTA: EXAMINATION 


88 Sxame 

neiraquemais nam* tornao ao ooe de antes 
foratn 5 porera alfrael caftiga difcrentemen- 
te. Ajienufte a rente Shot, ajtetttafte a gttrte, gle* 
rificaftete} epee efogsfte atsfias da terra, quer di. 
zer 5 ajuntafte Snor, multi plicafte Snor fazer 
marovilhas com aqucila gete, e affi te glorifi- 
cafte,gente que ayias la^do aosfins da terra.e 
porconclufaov defpois de todos osmaIe$j>af- 
iados,defpois de longas efpera$as:t«V*V4* tew 
morns: os tens feridos, os tens mortificados, e 
trilhados,contados quafi por mortos na terra, 
yivirao: li^alofhaa terra de fi, e brotarao della 
como ervaje he conformeao que fe le no cap. 
leguinte. Em os window os longer* fabacobrai- 
usiflorefcerd , e brotara Ifrael. tudo ia6 feme* 
lba9as,emodos de falar com figuras,qaehene- 
9cflario entender com juizo de homens,e nao 
tomar as palavras como foao indifcretamete* 
Seguele o lttgar de Iiob: 8eu eostbeco men re* 
midor vivo , epor derradeirofobreom eflard, &. 
£ refpondemos que mui defviado he o fenti- 
do de Iiob da quelle com que muitos o entcn- 
dem, on quere entender, e o que em fubftan* 
$ia die, he, que elle tinba confian^a em Dcos 
oueinda o avia de levantar daquelle lugar on* 
de iazia chaga'do ferido.e debilitado, e levan* 
tado emfeus pes lbe avia de fazer os facrifi* 
$ios que de antes coftumava, e louvalo. Ea 
conheco mete remidor vivo: eu fci que aquellc 
em quem eu tcnho confian^a, he Deos vivo, 

pode* 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


139 


Dm Tradicoes • 89 

po&rofo para me remir,livrar, levantar, tkar 
delta anguftia, tribula^am, e roiferia em que 
me veio (todas as vezes que Deos livra os ho* 

'mens de males, tribula£oes,e perigos, fe tha- 
ma Deos remidor $ affi quando remio o povo 
do Egypto, e he materia fora de queftuo. ) E 
per dcrradcirofibre 0po efiara:e que no fim del¬ 
ta minha anguftia fobre a terra eftar 4 , andarit, 
e ft moverd minha pelle, meu corpo, (a pelle . 

le toma por todo o corpo no roelmo liob ) E ’ 
defpois que mink* pelle trilharem eila: defpois 
que a infirmidade, doen^a, e chagas de que 
eftou ferido ( efihiefitao deduutte do Snrr eft- 
rioaliob em chaga mi desdaplanta de feu pedate v.y. 
oaltodefitacabeca .)defpois que os bichos cria- 
dos ncllas, ou levantados do p6 em qne eftou 
alTentado (yefliofi minha ear he de bichos immu L c *t 7 *i 
dicta do potminha peHe fi carton,e dtfitottfi) deixi- 
rerade tratar mat efta pelle,e carne:enton^e$: 
de minha came verei a Deos:ententes reforma- 
do,e convalel$ido,reftituido a meu antigo efc 
tado for^as,e perfei^ao,verei a Deosrmadru- 
garei aquelle lugar onde eu coftumava fazer- 
Ine facrifi^ios (e madrngava pella man ham, efa - 
da fitbir alcacdes ) e affi verei a Deos* O qualm 
hei de t ter a mim (darivo ufado no H ebraico) o 
qual eu racfmo hei dever:* naoefhranho: nao ha 
defer outrem por mim.eu.eu mefrao fareiefte 
officio. deftnganaivos amigos que tam fern 
caufa me perleguis, calumniais, a frontais, 

F y dizendo 



140 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


90 Ex*m 

dizendo que por minha maldade eftou no 
Op. eftado cm qae me vedes ( U da, vaju mttn- 
^ 8 * t /trgvtbdSlcs, turn vos antis dews endwvfcr- 
doscontra mim . ) defengauaivos»e fabci, qae 
** I, ‘ iadaqac vos tenbo dito, e vos o vedes, Em a 
mittm fills* m 4 mirth* corrupt pegon 0 mem ojfo, 
ofbptei C 9 m 4 pdU de mats dtntes (com a pclle 
pegada nos dentes*) com tudo ifo tenbo ef- 
pera^as ^ertas, antes iei que me hei de ver 
levantado dcfte eftado, e tornado ao meu pri- 
meiro: eftarei fobre meus pes,verei minha 
came reftituida , e irei dar gramas a Decs, e 
offere^erlhe novos facrifi^ios. tudo ifto vio 
Iiob cumprido em fi defpois que o Senhor le- 
srantou delle feu a^oute como ie le no fim do 
tvro.eUcmcfmo foiver a Deos,e pellos met 
jdos feus amigos offereseo aJ^a^ad. E de ver- 
dade baftara para defenganar os que mefmo 
a fife enganao, entendendo efte lugardife- 
srentemente do que' he * a rauita dareza com 
que em outros muitos fala nefta materia o 
mefmo livro de Iiob negando lcvantamento 
aos defundos como ia atras moftramos. 

Alguns querendo mal entender apalavra t 

5 or derra deiro, interpretam, no fim do raun- 
o, e juizo final que vammente imagined, co¬ 
mo que fenampodefle fer derradeiro, e dcr- 
radeiro mui breve, e limitado cm poucos dias 
j£*conformeo fojeito deque fe trataflc. quote 
data comer man em 0 defir to t que num conhecerao 

tens 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


141 


Dattradicees. 91 

tom fait for outfit de tt ajflipra for caufadetet** * 
tar para four oemati em oteu derrodeiro • efte 
derradeirp fe limitou no fim de 40. annos qne 
o povo aodou em o deferto antes de entrar 
na terra prometida. falava pois Iiob dofim, e 
derradeiro de iua infirmidade, e nad falava do 
derradeito diado mfido que nunqna acabari. 
moftrafe claro peQofim do livro:* bedifeo Sen. ( 
her aoderradeirode liob mate que ao feu frincifio y S. 
efordo 4 die quatoru mil eveUm^tBtc era o derra- v - 1 *• 
deiro de que liob felava,e efte o que elperava. 

Tambem fonbao porque alii fe ler e de mi* 
nha came verei a Dcos: que o bomem real, 
evifivelmente ha de ver a Deos no ceo defpois 
de refulpitado .ver a Deos be adoralo no tem- 
plo.e lugar dedicado ao culto divino :Nioofo¬ 
rdo viftas minim facesemvatio: nam vireis di- 
ante de mim ao lugar de tninba morada fem 
trazer que me offerecais, e entam vio liob a 
Deosquando convalefydo foiaoftere^crlbe 
al^ap oes: falar em outra vifta he defvario. 

Faltauos por refoonder ao que diz o livro in- 
tituladode Daniel' emuitesdosquedcrmemema Cop. 
terradepoefpertaraouftoeparavtdadesepreaeftes 
para desbonra far a defpreu de sepre.e outra vez:e 
tuvaiao fim^edefcafarasaeftardt emtuaforte em 
fim dot dias.TL dizctnos que efte livro de Daniel 
nad he teq ebido dos |udeus.chamados, Sad- 
dupeus, o que loo baftava para lhe tirar o cre¬ 
ditor e £6 (por fe dever ao teftemanbo fimples 

dos 



142 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


91 


Exam e 


<ios Pharifeus mui pouco , conforme ao que 
ia difemos, vifto ferem eftes homens tais que 
tomarao por officio, ou por 1 locura, trocar pa- 
lavras , mudar, tonjer, interpretar avefada- 
mente as efcrituras paracoufirma^aoje firme- 
za de feus confulbslonhos , e delatinos que- 
rendo por eftes falfos meios a judalos) quan- 
do por li tnefmo nam fe tnoftrara a pouca 
verdade dos lugares referidos , doutrina toda 
Pharilea, centraria i doutrina da lei, elcrita 
naquelle livro debaixo de name de prophe^ia 
para engano do povo, e confirma^ao da falfa 
pregacao. Moftrafc pois a pouca verdade dos 
ditos lugares, por que diz o primeiro, que 
muitos refufijitarao, e nam diz que todos re- 
fufeitarao , e fe tal refurre^am ouvefte de a- 
ver, era ne^elfario que foflegeral para rodos 
os homens, ou folle que reful^itaflcm para 
pofluir bem , ou reful^italTem para pofluir 
inal, conforme ao que cada hum vivendo me- 
re^eo. Ecomoos Pharifeus pregem , e digao 
que a refurrei^am nam he para todos, mas lo- 
mente para alguns, como tambem as almas 
nam fao todas immortaes, mas huas ft , e ou- 
tras nam, ia fiqua claro quc a efetitura foi fei- 
ra , e accomodada para provar, e authorizar 
fua tarn falfa, e errada pregacao- O mefmo le 
v^pelloverfo ultimo em quanto dizgozaria 
Daniel, e eftaria em fua forte no fim dos dias: 
por que os Pharifeus enfinam que no tempo 

que 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


143 


DdttrMtUcdes • 93 

qae tier o MafEah fe lcvanttrao os monos 
para poffuir cad* bum fuaheran^a era a terra 
dc Hrael, doudice, e locura defatinada, par* 
caia prove fe aproveitarao de falfa efcritura. 
oatras coufas fe achad no livro de Daniel que 
bem moftram, e publicam fua artifi<jiofa in. 
vencao. alii be a primeira vez que acbamos 
nomes de anios nomeados por feus nomes, 
que atelli nam aviamos fabido. nem por lei, 
nem por outros livros, etodo feu eftilo, e mo- 
do, be buS fabricada compofi^ao. E nam pa- 
re^aa algum coufa difficultofa aver efcritos,e 
efcritores falfos, por que fe quizer abriros 
olhos, nenhna coufa verd que mais ordinaria 
feia entre os homens. quern fez o livro de Ju¬ 
dith , e te^eo aquella hiftoria ? quern o tcr^ei- 
ro, e quarto de Efdras? quern o da fabedoria, 
e outros muitos que nam he ne9efIariorefe- 
rir? pois tambem a hiftoria de Efther he ne* 
^eflario que entre nefte nuroero. Nam faltad 
efcritores falfos, prophetas,fonhadores men- 
tirofos, que a tudo fe eftende ^ mali^a hu¬ 
mane j araoefta^oes temos da lei que nos avi- 
fou, e quiz finer a cautelados,quern a fua ver- 
dade fe apegar de todos 0$ erros efcapard. be 
finalmente aquella doutrina efcrita no livro 
de Daniel, doutrina nova contraria a doutrina 
dalei, e outros livros que fuas pizadas fegue, 
e affi por tudo nada della curaremos, ou deve- 
mos curar. E moftrado que temos fer o bo- 

mem 



144 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


92 Exame 

mem todo mortal (poaca ne^efEdade tinha 
de fe moftrar o que ieve)e nad lhe reftar outra 
vida para viver, veiatnos os inconvenientes, 
oa males que fe feguem do erro contrario. 


Cap . 3. Em que fe pom os erros,e males tjaepro- 
fedemde Jeter a alma dohomem 
por immortal. 

C OMO de bum abfiirdo coftumem a 
naffer muitos abfurdos, e de hum erro 
muitos erros; iao tantos os nal^idds defta er- 
radaopiniam, ou locura, fobrc a iraraortali- 
dade das almas, que nam (erd fa^il manifefta- 
los. Os Pharileus que fomente a 9ertas almas 
derad immortalidade, bemaventuran^a eter- 
na, e tambem males eternos: para nam con- 
denarem eflas almas fa^ilmente aos tormen- 
tos, diferam, e dizem que quando aconte^a 
fazer hua alma em hum corpo obras por onde 
roere^a fer cpndenada : ou faltandolbe por 
cumprir algum man^amento, atorna Deos a 
mandar vir em fegundo, c ter^eiro corpo atd- 
que ganhe < como elles dizem, o pao que no 
$eo hade comer, introduzirao tambem hum 
lugardepurgatorio noqual podeflem purgar 
feus defeitos as alcqas dos que fbrao mediana- 
mente bons, em tanto que para efte fim as de- 
grada Deos muitas vezes, e mete dentro nos 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


145 


Dts trsdicocs, pj 

animais (animals bachareis devem fiquar) pa- 
raque alii fe purgem.c affi por que pode aeon* 
tc^er andar a alma de bum bomem dencro de 
hu£ vaca, quando fc degolar aquella vaca,feia 
demaneiraque finta pouca pena. (que os ani¬ 
mals fc degolem com piedade bom, e direittf 
be , mas nam por efta caufa.) E quando ne- 
nhum defies remedios bafta, e a alma fbi ram 
mi que mere^e fer condenada,a manda Deos 
ao higar dos cormentos etemos, onde para 
fempre viva penando; e nifto veo a parar, e fc 
lhe converteo a gloria que efta alma pofluia 
de antes no £eo, morando como elles iizem, 
debaixo da cadeira da Divindade ( alma tola 
que fe nam foube bem pegar, e fe deixou lan- 
f ar qua a efte mundo.)pergunte agora alguem 
aeftesquem foique canto lhesdife poisalei 
)bo nam dife, ou em que fundao feus ditosj 
pintores falfos : novos ^enfores da jufti^a di- 
vina, maravilhofos, e efpantofbs naviftado 
rude povo que com admira^ao os ouve. 

Em pos os erros afiroa fegucm logo ontros, 
como fad, fazer ora^ois, e rogativas pcllos 
mortos : offerer porcllesa Oeos onertas 
paraosaiudaratirar mais^edo das penas do 
nngido purgatorio : mil abufos j e fuperfti- 
?ocs que fe ufad em feus enterrps: coufas to- 
dasque mutto oftendem a verdadeira lei,e 
cultodivinoque detais nugas fe nam ferve, 
0601 paga, antes as reieita. e abomina. 


Aos 



146 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


94 Exmmc 

Aos erros acompanhao como adjuntos 
ne^eflarios muitos males,que nao ha erroquc 
poflaparir algumbem jeaffi efta Iocuratcm 
obrado no mundo muicas , com dano, e per- 
da dos donos della, da qui nal^eo que delpre- 
lado muitos os bens, ou males prelentes.com 
clperan^a de majores bens, e temor de .majo* 
rcs males , inftituirao novas ordens, e regras 
de viver, condenando, e foieitando feus cor* 
pos arigores, edurezas, da lei nam pedidas,e 
dos bons nao (eguidas : morar nos montes, 
comer mal, e veiiir pior, e o que mais he.che- 
garao atanta locura, que iulgaram porcoula 
mais fanda, e religiola o cftado dos folteiros 
que o do legitimo matrimouio divina, e natu- 
ralmente inftituido. outros oflfere^erao fiias 
almas ao martirio, e cutelo nef^iamente, c as 
vidas que os antigos padres tanto eftimavam, 
como prodigos, c dcfafifados vammente, e 
femcaufa largaram, edeixaram. alii que an* 
dando enlouque^dos debaijco de fallas cfpe- 
rati^as, e promellas.que a fi mefmos fern per- 
guntar a Dcos fe fazem.nao labem o que ouf- 
cad, epor que lam indignos dos bens prefen- 
tes, nam meresem que Deos lhos de, nem li- 
9en$a para ular delles. 

Bern algum que poiTa nailer defta falla opi- 
niam, nam o ha, por que le eftes diferem que 
ienam ouver majores bens, ou majores males, 
os homens nam temeram a Deos, e cada bum 

far i 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


147 


Das traduces, pf 

fari fua voaiade, nenhua coufa dizetn.ifttuto 
mais tcrac oladrao da fore a que ve prefence, 
do que teme do inferno que nara ve; c quan* 
do ocaftigo be duvidoib>ou be amea^ado para 
ionge, refponde , que tambetn os amea^ados 
pad comem. Nad he afli nos caftigos prefcn- 
tes, e que de beeve fe pagao , antes fe hum vai 
para matar,c lbc lembraque fe matac lhe cor* 
taradacabc^s^refreafe, enam mata. Efefe 
nam refreaifcora o medo da morte pretence, 
memos o fard com o medo futuro, de que 
fempre lhe fiquad efperan^as de efcapar. aiE 
os iuizos, e caftigos de Deos com os bomens 
de prefence ,podem muito mais para os do* 
brar, que amea^as fucu/as , que had de ter 
compnmento em vtda nam conhe^ida. ferye 
o foldado na guerra , onde tern mais ^erta a 
perda quep ganho, por eftipendio tarn limita. 
do que efcaiamentc pode viver :melhorfer- 
viri o ho mem a feu meftno Deos a que intern 
obriga^am dt fervir, c que efte me{mo 4 ervi< 

90 paga diferentemente.icr vico tarn levc qne 
pare^e, nam he nada. E agora Ifrad qnepede0 
Snor Deos ten detifenao qnc temat ao Snor De* 
testy <jne ancles cm todosfetu cams ft bos ? canjifthos 
dcdireito.caminbosdejuftifa. caminbos fua- 
vesjeleves, que os que nam eftam pegados na 
tortura amao,e defeiao.e f6eftrompe9ara net> 
les os pervetfos.e mzosujnato fe adofarao a men *f*l- 
padar tnat paLtvrac : mais <jne mela mittha hoc*. ‘ 

G Alguin 



148 


’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


96 Examt 

Algum tempo morei eu na efcuridade enj 
que veioa muitoseftar, embaracado, c duvi- 
dofb com os enleos de falfas efcmaras,e dou- 
trina de fabulofos homens, nam podendo to- 
mar firmeza, e acabar de atinar com efta vida 


ctcrnatam apregoada de tantos, e luear onde 
fe aviade poffuir, vendo a lei de liodo calada 
en eoafas tarn grandes, e de tanta importan- 
cia$ mais defpof? que por amor da verdade, 
obrigado do temor de Deos me difpus a def- 
prezSr, e veneer 6 temor dos homens pofta 
iomente nelie minha confian^a: em tudo fc 
trocott, e mudon minha forte j por qne me ti- 
rou Debs de duvidas que me afflrgiam, pon* 
dome no caminho da verdade comfirmezaj 
mens bens, e minha faudefoi gnardada, com 
tam particular, enotoria afirftemjia divina, 

3 ue os qae menos queiram feram conftrangi- 
os , eobrigados aafio confeflar* vivopois 
contemede conhecer o raeu 6m, e faber as 
condi co£s da lei que Deos me deu para guar* 
dar: nam fabrico torres no vento, suegrando- 
me, ou eneanandotne vammente com efpe* 
rancas falfas de fbnhados bens ; tambem me 


nam entrifteco nem perturbo com receo, ou 
pavordemajores males, pelloferdehomero 
<juc Deps me deu, e vida que me empreftou 
lne dou muitas gramas, por que fendo que an* 
tes de eu fer me nam devia nada, me quiz an* 
tes fazer bomem que nam bicbo. E de verda* 

de que 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


149 


Dm Tradtcoes. fjr 

pie que a coufa que mais me affligio-, e canfbft 
neftavidaioi «atender,ou imaginar hum tern- 
po.que avia bem,e roal eterno para o homcm, 
e que conforme aoque obra/ie , ganbaria o 
bem, ou mal; e que ie entao me fora dado ef- 
co 4 ber, eu fern nenhua demora refponderkt 
que oara queria ganho tarn arrifeado, e me 
con ten cava antes com ganhar me nos. ena fim 
permite Dcos eftas opinioes para atormentar 
aaconi^ten^ks daquelles que delle > e de fua 
6ft verdade fe apartao. 

Cap. 4. Em que fe come fa a refpoadcr ao pri- 
metro d$ cotter or to. 

S OBRE o queatrasfiqua efcrico$ercaa 
alma do bomera fundou noffo contrario 
iuaiepofta, e qpiz moftrar immortalidade da 
ditaalma* Propos no primeiro capitulo tratar 
dacria^am do nomem , e de fuas perfei^oes, 
elogocome^a a delirar ,e fe voa fem azas i 
cria^ao dos aoios, e mundo invifivel, queren- 
do conoborar feus fonhos com huas authori- 
dades que allege, e para provar muitos mudos 
traz bum verfode lefahiabu: Cottfai emoSnor Jef. 
para femfrt , peer tftk em Jab 0 Shot fortalexA dot 16 4 ' 
mmdos.toadc no Hebra^o fe le>Jw/4M»iw,plu- 
rarde, hoUm , que Ggnifica, leculo, tempo, 
idade, e nam GgniGca o mundo, a que fe cha- 
roa redondeza,que efle tem outra palavra com 
que fe nomea,e fe diz, tevel,c nam, holam. afli 

G 2 que 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


j>$ Sxdme 

queoverfb namfala nefte mundo vifitel, c 
mufcomenos falaem muitos mundos. convi- 
daoos homens a por a confian^a cm Deos, 
portae nelle ciU afortaleza, o bem, e ore. 
medio de todos os tempos* idades, egera* 
906s. Vai mais por diante, e dir, qoe porque 
efte mundo qua debaixo nam fe podia confer. 
Tar* como dizia o Philofopho^fem communi* 
9am do mundo colefte, e efta communicant^ 
era tarn difficulrofa como feria ttjuntar os 9c©* 
com a terra * criara Deos o homem com potto 
de ambos para qu<f fofle como vinculo, e liga- 
me da terra com os^eos. De modo quo vein 
a direr que o homem Ihftenta 0 mundo,e o faz 
eftar* qire parent oovera decak fe o bomett 
nam fora* Alem ditto apart a a verradospeos^ 
e de cada coufa fez hum mundo^fendoqtieos 
9cos, e a term juntamente fazem o mundo, e 
debaixo defte home fecomprende todolett 
ornato. Eporquefeeuouveflederefpooder 
atodas as coufis defte homem, e a feus iftili- 
tosdefetinos* feria neneflario encher muito 
papel* daodo demo6 aditos feo$*que me nam 
importam, tratarei f6 derefponderaosluga. 
resemoue falar contra a Verdade qoe tenho 
moftrado, Dorquenam me obrigei a emen* 
dalo de tocos feus error, e tomar lobre ifo 
trabalho. 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


151 


DdttrsMcMf* 99 

C*f. j. Cert* oqmdix, Am Afimns Am 
pbiUfifbesfibre aaIma, m qmfi 
form a verddde. 

N A M achou efte bom homem, cuio in- 
tenco nam heoutroqueafear averdade, 
totreos Pbilofophos das nap&quefn difefle 
que a alma rational era mortal, fiuvo a Epicu- 
10# bomem, que totalmente negou a provi- 
dcn^ia divina, e fc ddxou dominar dos vi- 
fios, fendo f erdade que«os mats doutos de 
todos, e das na^ocs mais political, diferam 
fempre que a alma era mortal, e o contrario 
tiuhao por devaneo, e locura, achadaouen- 
tre genre barbara * on one lerada de alguns 
refpeitosfemeava efta ooutrina pello povo. 
Pomponio Mela referindo os coftnmes dos 
povos daTbra^ia.diz que os Getas erao feros. 
emuideliberadospara tomar a morte, e que 
a rawfr de fer ifto afti, era a opioiam que en- 
tredlesavia: por que buns tinhao para fi que 
as almas ariam de tornar. outros que inda 
que nam tonavao, nam (e extinguiam , mas 
paflavam para snelhor. outros nnalmente, 
ouede verdade morriam,masque ifo era me- 
Ibor que viver«ealfi coftumavao choraraos 
quenaiqiaoxenas mortes faziam fefta, ten- 
do por grande bonra matarfe a molher , 

G 3 e enter- 



152 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


too Exttmc 

e entcrrarfc com o marido defunto.O mefmo 
author referrado (uperfij^oes de algans povos 
de Franca, que facrificavao aos deofes corpos 
humanos, aiz que os Druidas fabios deftaj 
rentes, que profeffavao f^ierujia dos 9eos, e 
aas eftrelas, e metidos em covas enfinavao 
muitas coufas em fegredo aos mals oofrct 
dellas j entre o que lhes enfinavio, a fim de o 
fazerem mais deliberados para as guerras, 
era, que as almaseram eteroas, e avia outrji 
vidaparaos que paflavao* De maneira que 
os doutos fe zombavao das geotes bar bar as, 
entre as quais eftestrros tinbao aflemo, e en- 
tetldiam a caulk*, pell* qual os que fe chama- 
vam fabios enfinavam eua doutnna > que a tan- 
tos tern dado na cabe^a, efez, e faz fazer 
tantos defatinos: como tambem diz Jofepbo 
que os Pharifeus com a mefma opiniam le#a- 
vam o povo tras fi. 

Mas para que nos canfardmos nos com al* 
Iega^oes de Philofopbos que falaram* (bn 
eicritura, on para que nos aproveitardmos de 
feus ditos, tendo junto de nos * e com nofco 
Judeus, e Chriftaos, que querendo, e nara 
querendo, vem a confeffar, e dizer que a al¬ 
ma he mortal, come^emos nos Judeuj. que 
coufa diz o Judeu quando diz que as na^oes 
acabam por morte> e foo elle vive, fe nam diz 
que a alma racional hede fua natureza mor¬ 
tal? 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Dastradiciics, lox 

wl?Agora ouqaroos o Chriftao.todo o Chrif- 
iao que fqgueadoutrina de Luthero, e ou* 
troSjdizem que a alma re^ebe o fer do pai 
pclla poteo^ra generativa- Em confcflando 
ifto, be logo for^a , e neseflidade irrepara- 
vel, aver de confefTar fua mortalidade , e alsi 
vem a confeflar o Cbriftao aquillo que nam 
quer ,obrigado da natureza, e for^a da pala- 
vra divina. levantenfe agora embora os Chrif- 
raos, buns contra os outros, e vendo o que fe 
fegue de fer a alma gerada pello pai, cbamem 
nomes aos que afsi o dizcm, e feguem,que el- 
les fezombam de todas effas gramas , e tem 
tam bem fundado o feu allele que nam ha 
quern os poffa combater rofto direito. 

E quanto o que efte diz, que Saddok, ho- 
roem malino, e obftinado com a abomina- 
vel turba dos que o feguiram, tiveram em Ju¬ 
dea a mefmaopiniam dos Epicuros ,de que 
hoie nam avia not^ia : tudo lam palavras tra- 
zidas ao Em que difemos. quern a mim que 
eftouvivo,e cujas obras fam conhe^idasno 
mundo, nam duvida nomear pellos mefmos 
nomes , e que por foberba , e enveia ( coufa 
g^iofa) me obftinei a feguir o mal, que mui- 
to he que diga o mefmo de Saddok, e de fua 
companhia que Ihe nam pode refpooder, e fe 
outra malignidade , e obftinasao nam teve 
mais que efta , foi dos mais verdadeiros ho- 

G 4 mens 



154 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


lol Exam* 

mens do mnndo. Os Saddu^eusefam a gerite 
dais n6bre do povo , cotno diz Iofepho', e 
mm rente vil, e perdida j nem fao acabados, 
mas wo muitos, e vivem hoic. O penfamento 
defte mao > todo vai a afear, e apoquentar, c 
nifo quer fundar fua iufti^a, nos pclio contra, 
rio nalei, c na verdade. 

~ E antts qnc tamos por diante, para quc 
melhor ft conhe^a a qualidadc defte nomem, 
e o refpeito que o moveo a por em publico 
efta forte defezt qne pella immortalidade 
das almas dos feus tomou , contardmos o 
que lhe ouvimos em bul pratica fuaao po¬ 
vo, que-junto eftata* Quiz elle tratar do no¬ 
mem , e por a definigam delle para dalli vir 
noconhe^imento da alma. Di(e que os feus 
o definiao-bem em dizer que era hum cn- 
te que falava, e nam falava como papagaio, 
tnas com difeurfo. Dalli veo a dar na alma, 
e paramoftrar que tinha contra fua immor¬ 
talidade (abios de fama , allegou com Selo- 
moh, e por fim de toda a contend* dife eftas 
palaaras formats. Ou feia que eu me con- 
iidere HE , on me coniidere affi : sipegofe d 
poho mi dm* : obiviftmc como tu f*Ubr* ; e a 
palavra era : fof Amos o homem 4 nojfo im*ftm % 
ofimcUumf*. atequi elle. Naquelle tempo 
me pare^eo mal o feu modo , por que em 
material defta qualidade nam le fala para 

deixar 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


155 


DfUradicocs. toj 

defeat a gettte dovidofa , e embara^di, e 
feaalma era immortal, efe tinha porfe,de 
neobua maneira fc fbfria polo em duvida* 
mas he cofhime de femdhantes lati^ar, co* 
mo dizem, a pedra, e efconder a mao. E e£ 
te he o homem que agora tomou a feu car* 
go a defenfao da immortalidade, que nodia 
de ootem dife publicamente, que fua alma 
eftava apegada ao poo, e avia mifter fazer 
Deosmilagre paralhe mudar a natureza, e 
fair delle. 


Cap. 6. MoFira contra o advcrfario 
<juc o ctuendimonto nao da im- 
mortalidadc • 

N O feu capitulo quarto diz o menti- 
rofo Philofopbo , que pois o homem 
entende, e o entender nam tern nada de cor* 
po, bem poderi a alma do homem fazer ef- 
te offifio apartada delle, e affi fiquarfe im¬ 
mortal • para provar efte feu dito fobe aos 
9eos, e arma num arruido de defatinos, e 
logo faz bud pal had a , e no cabo de tudo 
fe encontfa a fi mefmo, e nam condue em 
coufa algua. Deixa Philofopbo falfo tea 
fantaftico arruido , em que o' tempo he 
mal gaftado , e com que cuidas embara- 

G s <i* 



156 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


fo4 Exmt 

far olgum ignorance que te Ier , e ft m$ 
moos tens com que bon podcr defender* 
ee»poente comigo de cara a cart , pronuis 
fepodes eftar. Perguntote quantas almas tem 
ohomem? teosgeitodedizerqoe tem tres, 
on qnatro,mas por algua piquena vergonha 
domundo,be ne^effario que refpondas qae 
tem hoi. Se ohomem tem huaalma, on co¬ 
da morre , on coda vive, e nam pode morrer 
cm parte , e em parte river. Por tua mefma 
boca confcffas no ten cap. 3. que o principal 
effeito da alma, he vivincar a coufa que ani- 
ma. A alma que anima ohomem, he a alma 
motiva, e fenfrtivu, em que be femelhante aos 
brutos, e efta alma morre nelle, e fe extin- 

g ie, aonde lhe fiquou ao homem outra alma? 

oraacaba ia feta befta do mato, re9ebe,con- 
fefla, e dize, que o homem he hum (oieito 
aoimado, que viyendo corporalmente fe mo¬ 
ve ,feme, e eotende , propriedades infepara- 
▼eisddlepor morte » que nam morrem em 
parte, eem parte rivem, mas durao em quan* 
to die rive, e faltando faltaln todas com el- 
le. Doutra maoeira fe feguiria que a alma 
quechamas intelle&iva, era bu£ alma feper- 
floa • que nam dava vida ao homem, mas io* 
tnente afsiftia nelle para ogovernar, por que 
a vida lhe vinha da alma fenlitiva. £ afsi fe* 
sSamos cotiftar o homem, nam de bua fbo 
alma, em que concorrem diferentes virtu* 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


157 


Das TrtdicdZs. tof 

Jts, e pcopriedadesjosa* de minusabuts,di& 
t«ida$,e (cpararcis hua da outra.Eftes incon* 
rettientes nod ferao de muita for^a para a toa 
eompanhia,pois chega a tanra locura, que fat 
no bomcra diferentes almas, c algua della* ft 
rai de noire efpare^er por efle mundo, e trass 
dellmuiras coufas aprendidas; e no diado 
Sabbado lhe entrd mats oucra alma de refircA- 


co, e affi temos ia o pobre bomem carregado 
de tanras almas que nad fabemos qaal he lua,c 
qual alhea. Melhor feria aprender a ter ver* 
gonba, e deixar de por na pra^a tao foltos, e 
desatados des atinos. 


Hale pois de faber, que a parte do homem, 
ou virrude intelle&iva, efti pofta no corasad, 
e affi como o homem fern olnos nao pode ver, 
affi fan cora^ad nam pode entender. Confqp* 
me a ifto diz a lei: Ehaa dettoSenhor Avosdhos Vm. 
pATAvtr, e c or a f am pArA entender Ate o cUa efle. 

E do cora^am (abio fae fabedoria, e do cora- 
9am torpe,torpeza. Affi dife bem Plinio em 
dizer que a mente do homem eftava no cora- 
9am,ao qual fervem os outros fentidos, e vir- 
tudes da alma rational. Faltando pois no bo¬ 
mem aquella parte, em que confide, «tftd a 
virtude intelledira, nam pode fiquar, eoten- 
der, coufa propria do compofto animado, e 
que nunqua por fi efteve lem elle, nem obcou, 
e affi nao pode fiquar, nem obrar faltado elle. 



158 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


fof Sxame 

QuizoSnor Deos fazer o bomem criatuta 
f*|J©nal, e pos cm feu corafao cfpirito de.vi- 
<k rational: morre o bomem, por que fal too 
nrlleo cfpirito devida: quern naove, que** 
quelle ac^efforio, rational, fegue ao cfpirito 
derida> e que aquillo mefmo que Deo* pos 
no bomem , i(o mefmo tornou a faltar da 
mandra que foi potto. Ao argumento que 
pois Dcos entcnde, cnam tern corpo, tarn- 
pern o bomem pode entender fern corpo >e 
ontros delatinos nao ha para que refponder, 
eiafiqna ditoque a alma do bomem nunqua 
cttere fern corpo, nem entendeo fora ddle > e 
alfi nao pode entender faltando elle. 

Profeguc o contrario no cap. y. a querer 
prosar immortalidade, por que a vontadc de- 
leia o que o entendim€to conhe^eo por bom, 
alma pare^e etti pedindo verfe livre do 
corpo fas dos cartuxos, e defefperados nam 
dimdo) com outras impertinentias como ef- 
tas, coulas todas que nam mere^em re port a. 
Deixemolo pois com efta fua enxabida, e em 
muitas partes, falla Philofophia, e vamonos 
antes a refponder a alguas palavras fuasatre- 
fidas»e defcompoftas> que pro^edem de fua 
maldade. 

elle: Oh delenganele ia o tnifcravel, e 
in^dice bicho da terra tao ignorante, que por 
ponuoberba nega a ventaiem com que Deos 
o apartou das beftas,f6 por fe apartar de todo 

Ifrael. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


159 


Dm trdscofs, to f 

I Grad. Saiba que quern nega a immortaltdade 
da alma, efti muito perto de negaromefiitt 
Deos»por que quern nada teme»nem efpcradv 
outra vida,nao tem temor de Deos. E adiaote 
dizmais. Emfimfe as almas acabad com o» 
eorpos > vivac triumphe Epicuro, como difc 
hum amigo curiofo, que com eftes vivas, e 
triumphos acabari feus trifles dias quern cbe- 
gou a tao infelif e eftado que comparoa lua 
leprofa, e immunda alma com a alma de bua 
r tpofa, e de hum cacborro. 

Sobre a ignocau^ia que em mim ha » nao to 
refpondo. Em dizeres que porfoberba neoo a 
ven taiem com que Deos me aptrtouda*oe£ 
tas moftrasbematdonde fe eftende tuayeg* 
maldade, e falfaaccufa^ao. Por que fe difents 
que por pura ibberba me queria fazer Deos,e 
voarpara os^eos,trazia o teu dito fundametOk 
e nao feria ne^e&xio trabalbar muito parafet 
perfuadiraos homens j mas dizeres que eutne 
quero anihilar por pura foberba,que ce ouvifi 
que nao conbefa tua maldade * e nao digaque 
talcafta de foiberba nao be conhe^ida noanfi* 
do?euna6 meapartede Ifrael: apanoreedos 
baftardos de Iiraebe por mais me cbeear a die 
os deixoa elles, ea ti efcorea delles.dizesqUe 

S \€ nega a immbrtalidade., nafiefpera nadade 
eos>e affi na6 teme a Deos * nem o coube^e. 
E agora moftrasque eftas metido na peUede 
Epicuro por que negas a provide^ia aivina, e 

dizes 



160 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


lo3 Examt 

dfoes que ohomem vivo nam cfpera nadade 
Deos. Affi que vens a cometer tudo quanto 
pa&t bo mundo ao aconte^imento^e nao con-* 
be^es que os bei,e males nefta vida,tudo vem 
da mam de Deos,que fe rfto bem conhe^eras, 
nam poderas dizer que nam tern o homem vi-» 
bo que efperar de Deos, nem tem fobre que o 
teener. E logo quando vier a tea propofito has 
de dizer no cap. n. que nam era netjefTario 
fazer a lei meiKjram de caftigo, nem premio do 
outro mundo, por que os prefentes como de 
cootado obrigam mais. Deverdade cfpirito 
encontrado,e mao,que a lepra com que Deos 
ferioteucorpo, c a cormcbano imtnunda, fe- 
dorenta, e farnofa, com que te andas comen-* 
do, cdesfazendopellasruas,confumido, e 
fern figura, moftra bem, e d4 a entender ao 
mundo a immundi^ia, e fealdade de teu mao 
cora^am, por que eftes finaes coftuma Deos 
per por peccados, e deformidades delle. Em 
mim pelio contrario que finaes achafte para 
poder chamar a minha alma,leprofa? No cor- 
po nam os podes moftrar, que Deos por mer- 
qe foame cfeu limpo, e fern macula; poisque 
obras minhas poderis accufar que fs^am ver- 
dadeiras tuas palavras?Minha alma,falfo amo- 
fiottdor. nam comparo eu a almas de rapofas* 
nem cachorros, e feimelhor conbecerofer 
que Deos me deu: tu nam, por que efia tua al¬ 
ma defpois que fair de ti , como te enfinam 

teus 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


161 


Dm tra&coes. rof 

teas divinos fabiot, em hum cachorro ha de¬ 
fer metida par a afiifiquar purgada, e penitent 
riada. £ fendo ifto alii, nam tens vergonhade 
falar em rapofas.e em cachorros. 

Se as almas acabam com os corpos, viva, c 
triunfe Epicuro,como dife hum antigo curio- 
lb . Por 9 erto tam torpe devia de fer como tit 
es ( aqui torna a negar a provider*^ ia divina.) 
Se Epicuro pode vtver, e triunfar a leu pra- 
zer, viva, e triunfe £picuro* Mas 1c em lugac 
de viver,pode morrer com muita dor, e fe em 
lugarde triunfar,pode triunfar delie hua befit 
do moto,aagoa, apefte, aefpada, etodosoi 
males que coftuma Deos trazer por feus pee* 
cados aos filhos dos homes, pot que ha de vi- 
ver, e triunfar Epicuro? Sabes tu quern dile,t 
falou melhor j falou melhor aqudleque dife, 
quenenhum homemantes da monte fc pode 
julgar por bemaventurado; E fe Epicuro vi- 
ver ,e triunfar hoie, areanbamopoderamari 
raftar, e negro triuofb fera o feu* 


Cap- 7 . Rcffonde ao feifto da adverJario t em epte 
negajidgar Deos os bomens neflavida- 

N O leu cap. feifto trata o adverfario de 
corroborar fua fic<jam comdizerqueos 
juftos nao fao premiados nefta vida, e traz ex~ 
cmplo de Jahacob, e Efau com o verfo de Ma- 

lachi: 



162 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


ixo Extmt 

kchi: ttmc't a labaetb, e a Efim abcrrefi : e os 
effeitos defte amor, e defte odio nao fc virao 
compridos nefta vida. 

O ingraro he ne^eflarioque feia corpc,e $e- 
go, porqueo defconhe$imento he porta para 
aineratidafi. porifo dizalei : affi pagATAJ m 
Sower povc nefifio, c ncofidrie? como que nam 
pode caber pagar mal falvo em quern tiver fe- 
melhantes defettos,e falcas.affi aconte^e ago¬ 
ra nefta allega^ab que tcaz efte homem dc boa 
vifta,e nam acha em qneDeos aventakiua Ja- 
hacob,eofez maior que Efatupois porter to, 
deiconhe^ido animal, ^ue baftava fomente 
oovires tu a Decs dizerxaw Deos dc AlrrAloAm , 
Deos dc Ifchacye Deos dc Uhaccb : para entende- 
resque muito aventaiou Deosa Iabacob de 
Efau, e queibo efte tituku, c efta honra val 
mais que muitos thefcoros. Ao tituk>, e k 
honra nam deixou de acorn pan har mukidao 
de bens, e hum favor que Deos fazia a Jaba- 
cob quando o confolava, e animava, c quando 
& vifta dos perigos o efcapava,importava,e era 
de muito mais eftima que todos 09 triuofos 
do mundo. As palavras de Malachi referenfe 
ao direito da prlmogenitura , e bendi^ao que 
Deos tiroude Efau t cxria era, e a paflbu p Ja- 
hacob ,e nifo amou a bam, e aborre^eo aotl- 
tro. E tu pare^e que querias que E(au nao fof- 
ie gente, nem tivefle que comer, e com tudo 

te que- 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


163 


Das tradicots. hi 

te querias kvantar a raaiores. E{au tambem 
era filho de Jahacob>e a quemolle muito que- 
ruu Nao vemos que fizefle maos feitos ; an¬ 
tes moftrou fertam poucocob^ofoqjue de. 
baJde largou a primogenjtura ao iro#p que 
lha pedio- Nam queiras fer f6 no mundo, 
nemeuides que tuft has de viver , e fetgen- 
te. Baftete que na cafa do Snor, e criadoxde 
todos tens o primeiro lugar, e dixeito de pri* 
mogenitura. por^mlepobmte que quemmais 
re$ebe mais qeve ; e que aquelle que he mais 
cbegado ao Rei, efle ha de andar mais appa- 
tado diante delle, ou defyiari feus othos. En- 
tende que Deos te tomou para te fazer rauito 
avantaiado em honra, e em todos os bens fo- 
bre todas as mais eentes fiias-» mas com con- 
di^aoque tu fizelles obras para te poderes 
uomear filho de tal pai, e fervo do tal Siior» 
Doutra maneira perdeiias a dignuladtue grao, 
e ferias por cabo e nam cabe^a. ia que .agora 
es cabo, faze por tornar a fer cabega. £ fe 
queres ver que a promeffa, e bendi^ao de Ja. 
hacob, fpi lobre bens temporaes, pergunta ft 
feu pai»e ellc te refponderi: E resfondeo If Goj 
choc, e dife a £fatt : eis for Stnbor ofma ti t e todos * 7 - 37 . 
fern irmaos dei a ellc for fcrvos y e com fad , e motto 
oforttfiqmi, e a ti agora eftte ford filho meal 
E quanto ao que trazes que os pais procu- 
rara6 feu enterro em terra fanta, coufa fuper- 
flua, e defneedfaria, fe nam foffe refpeirando 

H are- 



164 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


it* Exjtme 

a fefcfteitao dos toortos 5 (am argumetttos 
teas* faze coma que re^earad aqqelks vohaj 
emquedizem osfeberanos fabios, fe had de 
ir revolveodo por debaixo da terra os corpos 
daquelfcs, que eftiverem enterrados fora de 
cefra'fefidaat^chegatem a ella, e como che- 
garem > entao fe lefawardo, que pare^e nam 
podem refafcitar fe tem for alii debaixo da- 
quellesares* O lodcos, e dcfafifados, que lo- 
curisi e deftttadsPhuffl.tem faido dcvos? 

Areradpor qu^fahacob femandon lev ax 
aoeqterroqae etotw para ft em terra de Che- 
nabatefbipdrfeeoiemr, como ellediz , no 
^\ v entcWodc feuspai| fe naquelle term que era 
« 4 X)o fua j e lhefoi prometida para heran^a de feus 
filbosieaiU qui&ttJoraflem feus oflbs pot me- 
moriq, euflf foflemhonrados» ebamfiqnaf- 
fem em a tfcrraalhea em elque^imento.coftu- 
me^dds^eis, c dos que podem , fe aconte^e 
morfcfem em terras alheas, fazerem trazer 
feus oflbs a feus emerros, ed terra de feu naf 
dmefitopara fe juatajr^m a feus paflados, que 
pareeche aosdefuntos confola^ao, iazerem 
na companbia dos feds* donde o outro Pbilo- 
fopbo efeandalizado daqueUa em que nafeera* 
fe moveo a dizer 2 ingrata patria nam pofliii- 
rds mensoflos* ta nam te nonrards comigo, 
item cu terei con(bla$a6 de me enterrar cm ti 
■por feres madrafta* E afli o argumento he fo* 
«d»do para provar immortalidade da alma, e 

refur- 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


DdsTrdirties. xtj 

reftfittf to dos mortos,nein pan die &nim- 
pactava mail far enterrado era terra de Che- 
naban, oa emterra de Egypto. 


Cdf. t, RtffnUiddlgtms drgmmemt 
tU c$mr*ri* mil fmuUdt n* 

efiritmd* 

C Ontim** eUe nd cap* 7. a qtleter provar 
fen iotcmo>e diz que o aflopro que Decs 
aflopron nonari* doprimeiro bottom, fehio 
karaedtataniente do Deos,foi bafode foe bo- 
ri,e como tdhe oeceflario que feia rocorrap- 
thrd. 

Se fe ouveffem de tomar aspakvras da e£ 
cricnra afls como ellas load,dariamosem mil 
barrancos, e defetinos,por que viriamoaadt- 
zerqueo Snor Deos tinba corpo, 0 andava, 
tfnha fefes, e tioba maos , poiique a efericura 
nos nomea eftas codas felando cm Decs* 
Logo bem fe ye daramente quepois iftoaffi 
Bad be » naofe efeufe de grande torpeza, en- 
tender qoe Deos afloprdu, eque o aflbpro 
quo eacron no bomcm, foi aflopro, e bafo de 
Deos, como efte diz, infpirado de (ua propria 
boca.E tnda qbe fe queira dizer que o affopio 
nao foi feito com boca, mas que fehio de 
Deos aflbprando, 4 femelhao9a do aflopro 
qnefe fez com a boca,i*m fe pode afli dizer, 

Ha por 



166 


’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


1x4 Exdm 

porque partDeos obrar, na6 he ne^eflario 
que laiadelle mefino aobra por alguaocfao, 
ou movimento exterior, mas a vontade cm 
Deos he a mefina obra, e em querendo fazer, 
ia eftt feito. falfb he logo entender que Deos 
affoprou, e o aflbpro lahio do mefino Deos. e 
fetal fora, a alma do hotnem era bufi parte de 
Deos, porque era bafo de Deos, coula abfur- 
da, e fora de caminho. 

Oquefeha de entender, edizer,be,que 
Deos lnfpirou/ez entrar Deos no naris doho* 
mem efpirito de vidas.efpirito com qne o bo- 
mem viveo, e efle efpirito, ou afTopro nadhe 
parte de Deosmem fahio delle immediatame- 
te,mas Deos o to mou doarafE como da terra 
aviafabricadoocorpodo mefino homem, e 
com aquelle efpirito aerio vnido com aqoella 
ma^a de que o homem fbraformado, viveo o 
mefino homem, e fbi, e fiquou alma vivente. 
Xxoi* Confirmafeeftaverdade por muitos luga- 
res da efcritura: AJfoprdfie com tut efpirito, co¬ 
brio os omar. na6 affoprou Deos, mas fez aflo- 
hjkh. prar o vento. AJfopro do Senhor como correntedt 
3°* enxcfre qtte or din netU. nao era aflbpro do Snor, 
que naa afloprava nefte lume, era hum vento 
forte,queporifofechama do Snor, poraue 
affifedi melhor a entender quata for^atinna. 

E que da natureza do ar fofle aquelle aflo- 
pro/M bem a moftrar Iechezchd quando diz: 
dos qHAtro-vcntos vtm efpirito * ajfofr4 nefies mor - 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


167 


Dm tradicHs, up 

t0j,evivitai.E por ifo dizSeiomoh queo wef- 
xno efpirito tem o bomem que tem os outros 
animais ; porque pofto que os animaes fairao 
da terra com a vontade de Deos logo aoima- 
do$> o efpirito delles tem da naturcza do ar, e 
dos ejemepsos lairad formation pci la vontade 
divina. E afli por rezao deft* compoficao, e 
concordia x deftmrao muitos i glrna , e oiler ao 
queera,harmonic, queconftadecoulascon- 
crarias, mas temperadas, e proportions das. 

£ quando bem foile verdade, que na6 he, 
que aa vontade divina pro^edeo immediata- 
niente o efpirito vital do bomem,nem por ifo 
fefcguia fer elfe efpirito immortal,? avia mik 
ter provar que nennua coula podiaDeos criar, 
que nC6 folic immortal,fe nacria^ad della nao 
intervieire materia elemetar.e efta prova leria 
riopolBvel fazer,por que as obras de Deos te¬ 
nd lerconibrTOe for lua vontade darlbo j e da 
oot>di£a6 da cria^ao, e foieito da coula cm* 
da*tem cada bus fer corruptivel,ou irtcorrup- 
uvel. corrupt ivel be o home.e tratido Lut he¬ 
ro de lua cnata6,pare9e que tomando a pefoa 
de Arifltoteles,quiz dizer o que fe ntia,e elcte- 
vcoquelea Ariftoteles dilellem que ohome 
cm lua origem fora terra, e com ifo formado 
demaneiraquceracapaz de immortalidade, 
fe ibltaria em cilo. 

Allega mais de Iefahiahurr almas eMfiz,.c Ie- 1 ? 

chezcnel: todas as almas am\m clias : cemo alma ^ ^ 

H 3 do pai> 



168 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


ill Exam* 

?Jil. d«pai,e off a alma eUfilbo,a mim ellas. Item : £* 
17 ' cmj of if a verei tmas faces far tar mohei cm differ. 

rf.49. tandodetmfimelkanfa. Ite : d* ftrto Dees retm - 
ra m**ha Mm* da poder da cava amende me temar, 
Deos fe chama , Deos de Abraham , Deos 
de Ifchac, e Deos de Jahacob, e Deos nam 
pode chamarfe Deos de couf* que nam ha. 
Ixod. Die a eferittira i efaiava 9 Senbw a M»fihfafes 
3 Mi. comfafes como fala varao com fen compateketre. 
E cotno Deos feia e(j>itito, hfc ne^eflario qua 
aquillo a que Hie fe conitiiurtiea immediata- 
mente feia efpirito fern liga de materia. 

Se Bilbao* narm efperava bens do mundo 
vindouro, nam Hnha para que rogar para fi 
mortede)uftoa>e ranto Hie motitata a dos ju(l 
tos, como a dos it^uftos , antes Ibe vinha me. 
Ihor morrer de bill eftocada como morreo, 
que de doen^as, que alguas vexes pade^etn 
tambern os juftes. e affi oque em contrario ft 
aHega, diz elle, he falfo , e indigno de bar ba* 
ros gentios,e por (em duvida temos que pref- 
to negar 4 a lei quem efta verdade negar. tam- 
2x1 ben 1 traz em outros lugares o verfo : e former i 
12. opoofibre a terra cemo fii , e 0 efpirito tor nor a a 

Deos ijueo dem. 

Aos lugares de Jefehiahu, e Jecbezchel 
refpondemos que prova6 muito bem que 
Deos he o criador, e Snor de tudo , e por iio, 
como alii diz , nam (e agaftar£ para fempre 
contra as fuas criaturas. e tambern fabe como 

ha dc 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


169 


D/utrtUeoes. 

hadejulgaraopai, eao£lho, equetadohe 
feu.Se iiroqucr provar cStc bon atado allcga* 
dor, nos lho damos pox provudo. O ved# do 
Pfidmo : emjmfhf a verm t*vfaces, quci; 
dizer que it aparelhaxia paraaparc^cr ootctn- 
plo diancc de Deos,e que oprimeiro cami- 
nbo que faxia pelja maunam leria ao mtfmo 
templo, que fuQ as fa$e*de Deos, como ia lbe 
jpouramos , e neUe lout ax ia a Deos pellas 
merges 4 e oAivrar, e efcapar dos inimigos. A 
femelbarwja dc que diz fe faxtaru r pvt £goi* 
Bear o fervor, e defeio com que acudiriaa e£* 
ta encorva^ad j era,por que os. Cherubim que 
eftavao fobte o propi^iatorjo reprefeotavao 
algud femeUwKja da moradadivma,queieef- 
coade a Doffatifla. A repoftado vcrio:d# frr* 
te Vet remit* minha alm* y &• ia de outxoslur 
gares a que ecfpoademos ie fiqua colhendo, e 
aam pode dizer outra coufa, ialvo, que coma 
Deos, e rime os juftos do*la$os, e maldadcs 
dos maos*e afli da cova, e tnorte que lhes buf- 
cavao* fe outra couia diieif^ contra a verdad? 
roamfefta.e provada por in&nitos lugares fern 
repofta da lei, e dcritqra, logo meteriamos 
efta na companbia das muitas que os Phari- 
feus fizera6-para Cornelias ajudar fuasfw^oes, 
c vaidade*. Efte Pialmo oam be de David, e 
entre dies ha ipu it os que forao feitos na fegu- 
da cafa, quando ia domioava a doatrina Pna- 
rifea. porem moftiale que outra couia oam 

H 4. quiz 



170 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


t 18 Exttme 

quiz <fizcr, c afli ,que nelle n*6 ha doutrina 
COflf raria i verdade, por que diz : Decs retmra 
rmrflmdint*depoder dn ccva:c a alma do defutac- 
a damos immortal, e que livre do corpo 
camrnhou para Deos que a dcu ,na6 eftava na 
cova.e afli mal podiafcr remkk della.e querer 
tntertder que ao corpo desfcico,e convertido 
em podridao chamaf \i alma,e efle corpo efpe- 
rava que Deos retnifleda cova,fcria fazer hu3 
alma muitraftnont 5 da,e fem figura.nem as al¬ 
mas immortaes , capazes de gozar da vifta , e 
eflen^ta divina ( 6 doudi9e) tinham que aver 
faudadcs do mileravel corpo immudo.desfei- 
to , econfumido, para defeiarem verfe outra 
vez metidas nellc > antes podiam ter por nova 
pcna fefeHrcs deffero taes novas. E qucm nad 
ve que para gozar de Deos, e cftar em lua pre- 
fen^a , era bem niais proprio o efpirito nu de 
corpo que encorporado ? fe os authores defta 
doutrina deflcm que o efpirito acabava com 
o corpo, por£m avia de vir tempo em que le- 
vaotando Deos o corpo da terra lhe daria por 
nova cria^am novo efpirito, entam podia mal 
vir a caber o fentido do verio.e entederfe del¬ 
ta refiirrei^ad.ou.por melhor dizer.nova cria- 
9am. E que ifto afsi fofle defeiava Iiob quando 
jjob dizia t Qjtfm dera emdfepulturd me efcondtras y 
>4-U- cfconderafme dtc fe ter nar t stair a : pofetdfme pra - 
x. 0 , etc lembraras demim. mas ifto afsi nu6 He, 
c o fentido do verfo fjqua dado. 

O argu- 



■URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


171 


Dm tradicots, itf 

O argumento que Deos fe fnticula,Deo$ de 
Abraham, Ifcbac, c jahacob, e nao podefer 
chasnufe Deos de coufaque na6ba,nc argt|* 
meoto de muita gra^a. Se nao onve no mundb 
Abraham, Ifchac, nem Jahacob, nao pode& 
Deos nomearfe Deos delies; mas fe na verda* 
de os ouve, e o metino Senbor que fe nomea 
Deos>delles,foi Deos dellcs.andou com dies, 
os emparou,livrou,e defendeo defeusinimi- 
gos, como fe na6 podera dizer que foi Deos 
delies,e como com efta noca>e final nao fe da¬ 
ta a conhe^er a feus defsendentes, e lhes diri, 
que be aquelle mcftno Deos que foi Deos, foi 
forte^oi obrigo a feus pais,eibi adorado def¬ 
ies? 

O oucro argumento de como o Suor falava 
a Mofeh immediataraence , he tauto gra^iofo 
como o afiraa. pare9e que quer cfpir a Mofeh 
do corpo que tinha;rfazelo efpiritonu de ca&- 
ne para affi fepoder vcrificar a lingoagem da 
efcritura.porem die com feu corpo enttava,e 
fahia,e nao o deixava no portal, he pois o fen- 
tido^uc nao falava Deos a Mofeh em fonhos, 
ou vifoens , mas de maneira quo Mofeh ouvia 
de perto a voz que com elle falava como podia 
ouvir a voz de qualquer homem,que he o met- 
mo que o Snor dife a Aharon,® Miriam quan- 
do fequizeram ignalar com elle. • 

Oque ajunca de Bilham, e quo canto moo* 
ta a morte dos juftos como dos injuftos, je 

H f tanto 



172 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


f to £1 x4 m e 

canto monta morrer as eftocadas calcado aos 
pds dos inimigos como na cama, laocoulas, 
que bem moftrao ^egeira.oupor melhor,mal- 
oade de hum torto , e mao cora^ao que de to- 
da a maneira quer falar contra a verdade, e fc 
eu agora lhe rogar que em poder de inimigos 
roorra, he 9010 que logo dir& que eu fou o 
mor inimigo,e que o mate Deos na fua cama. 
Nam te quero rogar nada,matete Deos como 
quizer, mas fe louco nara cftis , pedelhe que 
ieia antes morte de juftos a& como pedia Bi- 
lham. E quanto o que dizes dos barbaros , c 
gentios, e que prefto negarei a lei: coufa? di¬ 
zes tu que o oiaas torpe.e fero gentio nam po- 
de dizer pior. E a lei nam has de negar, mas ia 
a oegas, pots defiiizesaque ella diz , pondo 
em leu lugar a mentira, e, o que mais he,das a 
Epicuro larga li^en9a para poder triunfar, nc- 
gando deftamaneira osiurzos, eproviden^ia 
de Deos na terra. 

fiqua por refponder 20 Yfcrfo : E tor nara. 0 
fo fibre a terra dizemos que le nam avc- 
roos de chamar nomes a efta eferitura , fera o 
feotido como nos verfos emque fc diz que rc- 
Tfi colhe Deos o efpirito dos animacs , nos quais 
l0 4 ‘ fe nam entende que defpois de recolhido elfc 
efpirito fique alguma coufa. alii aqui dira,que 
o efpirito anda,ou torna a Deos,nam por que 
«nde,ou tome alguma coufa defpois de tirado 
ellc do corpo.E naquclle capitulo fe vfao rnui- 

tos ro- 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


173 


Das Tradicees, ill 

cos rodeos, e figuras para vir a dizer faani« 
coufa : afsi no verfo allegado para vir a disuse 
antes que morras j ou veohao dia da morses 
quiz dizelo daquella maneira; antes queop6 
torne i terra, e lc aparte o efpirito delle. 

Mas fenos avemos dc dizer o que (cnti- 
mos, ouoquefedeixaver, todoiuelle ca¬ 
pitulo he hum capitulo dos divinos iabiosvfa- 
bios altamente, que nam vfao da lingodgetn 
dos outros homens. afsi para reprefenraravev 
lhi^e come^ao com humasareogas : anterqm && 
feejcurefaojol)tultimateeftrtlhvittornemMSnt* ix.z« 
ves tmpos a chmva . Em o dia <jue Je moveraS is 
gnat das da cafa, e ft perveterao os varoes defer!** 
lex*: com o mais que alii {egae,compriao pa* 
ra trefladar, que eiles mefraos dedarao v ioW 
tando aquelles enimas compoftos de iua cafa, 
e manifeftando afsi fua muita f^icn^ia. Dize- 
mos pois que aquelle eftilo guardado naquel* 
le capitulo nam he conforme ao eftilo que fi- 
qua atras era todo o livro, efbi hum acenrf^ 
^entamento feito pellos (abios para prove 4a 
immortalidade, que no difcurfo fiquava negt- 
da por muitas vezes; e he o verfo allegadp 
contrario direitamente aoquc nefte livro fc 
publica fobre o efpirito do horaem. Moftrafe 
mais a hcqao por que diz:£ tor nor a opo fibres 
terra cormfoi,c o efpirito tor nor a aDeos tjm # den. 
liugoagera avefada, por que primeiro o efpi¬ 
rito fae que o corpo torne d terra. Saird fin efi p f+ 

pinto x * 6 ' 



174 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


112 Examt 

ftrito,tormtra a fna terra . mas allude a buma 
iabula, por quc eftudaram eftes Womens que o 
clpinco n*6 podia ir logo para o yeo , mas era 
Ce^eflario ter qua na terra alguma demora pa* 
ra purga^am , c alii nad fe pane deftc mundo 
•at^que ocorpo ie converta cm terra. Epara 
que k converta em breve, fe bufea, e defeia 
•terra que tenha virtude, e fo^a para gaft&r, e 
copfumir.Da qui vem dizerem que eftes efpi- 
ritos defuodos (abem o que fe faz , e pafla no 
mundo em quanto andad nefta regiao do ar, e 
mo voao mais para lima. Affi que o verfo fal* 
foeraz configo todos eftes fegredos, e roara- 
vrttws, e por tfo a lingoagem delle he trocada, 
eaveiada contra todos os lugares da efcriturA, 
Snad fk dara ham femelhinte a efte. 


Cap.?, Qttc a alma do homcm eHa 
nofangtte. 

D Efpoisqueoadverfario provou ao feu 
modo a immortalidade da alma , corao 
-ie vedo que nos capitulos atras fiqua eferito, 
dsnfcguio no (eu oitavoa querer refponder a 
iloftbsiuadamentos em que fundavamos fun 
mortalidade. Eprimeirode tudo dizquefi- 
zedibs huma defini<jam abufada , fern genero, 
nero diferenf a, que fe deve 4 s verdadeiras de- 
firti^oes. Nao fabe efte coitado, e mifera- 
▼ei Philofopho como dd a entender aos ho- 

mcm 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


175 


Dds trtdicoes. 

ratni queeftudoapor Ariftoteles, eafsifem 
propouto nenhum nos conta agora queatde* 
fin 19am dialc&ica ha de conftar de genera, 
e diferen^a , e nao vc o torpe que nad fbi 
soda ten9am fazer defini^m dialedica li- 
miradaem fertas palams, por que nao fala- 
oos com dialedicos, mas foi declarar, e dar 
a entender que coufa fe cbame.alma,a homens 
que fe I he pofeflem dianteadefinicam de A* 
riftoteles, ou outra feroelhante, elhes difef* 
fern qae ellea definia: fubftan^ia fcnfivel, e 
move!: on* forma do corpo natural que vive: 
averia roifter declararlhes que coufa fe cha¬ 
in affe fubftan<jia,ou forma.e darlhcs a enteder 
eftas defini^oes em todas fuas partes • e afsi 
em lugar de moftrar, e provar por lei, e por 
rezoens claras noflo intcuto, nos divertiria* 
mos fem fruito em declarar os termos da Lo- 
gica, coufa tao alhea, e defpropofitada. 

Indo por diante nos accufa porque difemos 
que a alma do animal era o feu fangue efpiri- 
tuado, eque nelle confiftiaa ditaalma, como 
a lei dizia; e fobre ifto diz que a lei falou por 
metafora>mas nad por que na verdade afsi fo£> 
fej porque a alma era hum a fubftan^ia incor- 
porea, indivifivel, fonte , e prin^ipio devida, 
e o fangue pello cootrario, corrupted, divi- 
fivel, tarn longe de fer alma, ou proprio fo- 
geito della, que nem vida. tern , nem he 
parte integranre do animal, e roal poderia 

huma 



176 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


r»4- Sxame 

buma tad vil, c baixa materia fer alma. Pello 
que oam fe pode fofrer, diz elle, aignoran- 
$ia de hum idiota que fern faber o a 1 fa be to da 
philofbphia fe atreve a definir almas , fendo 
ltia ignoran9ia taota, e tab crafla que as pala- 
vras da lei ditas fobre a alma do bruto, e tao 


mal entendidas delle,as aplica no mefmo fen- 
tido a alma do homem fern mais prova que di- 
zeio elle, e nab fa ben do que o fangue do bo- 
mem nab he vedado por lei. 

Nao duvido eu que os homens de entendi- 
mento, confiderando as coufas que efte diz, 
me efeufaflem o trabalho de refponder a ellas, 
mas pois fab comumas a todos, nab ferd bem 
deixalas de todo fern repofta. Alem do tefte- 
snunbo da lei que diz que a alma do animal he 
o feu fangue, e nelle eftd, e confide a dita al¬ 
ma, he ifto coufa mui antiga, e trilbada entre 
os Philofophos. Hum charaado, Cri^ias, para 
moftr ar, e confirmar que a alma era o fangue, 
trazia por prova que as partes dos animaes 
que casern de fangue, corao fao os dentes, 
•svnhas, os cabellos, nab fentiao, dondefe 
feguia que a virtude da alma fenfitiva pro^e- 
diado fangue, pois onde nab avia fangue,nab 
avia fentir. E pofto que contra efta prova fe 
Ihe queria dar huma mftan9ia,dizeudo que os 
aervos care9ia6 de fangue, e alguns animaes 
conao as vefpas, e abelhas na 6 tinhab fangue, 
•comtado neUes avia alma fenfitiva: a efta 


iinftan- 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


111 


D/u tttdiais, i2f 

jnftaofia refpondc conveoicntemcnte Origc- 
nes,bum Doutor Cbrifta6,cujos efcritos con- 
denou a igreia Romana no livro fegundo dos 
prin9ipios,di2endo,que pofto que o* taes ani- 
macs na6tenha6 (angue, tem humor da nato- ** 
reza do fangue, c rtenhuma coula fc dete cu- 
rar de quc efte humor tenhaacor do fangue, 
ou na6 ten ha, pois na fubftan^ia faz o meimo 
officio que faz o fangue nos ootros animaesj e 
affi confirm* o mefmo Origenes pella lei que 
a alma dos animaes he o feu fangue, e allege 
os lugares della. dondeoPoeta Latino prio- 
^ipal, para dizerquehum morrera, converteo 
galanteraente, e dife, que lan^araa almaver- 
melha. De maneira que dizer efte que a lei fa- 
lou metaforicamente , e que nem o fangue he 
alma, nem a alma confifte nelle, he dito de 
hum mao,que tudo entende as avefas,eos 
lugares metaforicos , e allegoricos entende 
propria mente, e os era que fe acha lingoagem 
propria, e(edevem entender propriamente, 
efles quer trocar, e fazer improprios. e (obre 
fer efte, tern ta$ pouca vergonba que nos diz 
eftas palayras. Para que nos canfardmos ex- 
plicado a metafora defte paflo a quern (e obf- 
tinou a tomalos todos i letra. deixemolo cui- 
dar,e dizer que o homem he hum tronco com 
tamos, e raizes, ia que a lei diz que o homem dm*. 
he arvore do campo. so* 

O torpe, falf*o,e mao,atado,e fingidocom 

correas, 



178 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


1 &6 Sx4m* 

correas, que por entenderes bern a lei,enten- 
des que eUa te raandou a&i atar, e com hum 
ieixe de ramos nas maos iugar,e florear diante 
de Deos comoutras a efte tom : eu fou o quc 
torao a lei 6 letra, e fem dilcri^am abra^o as 
palavras nuas, e cruas? ou lou cu o que bufco, 
e cavo feu fentido verdadeiro , e o bufco na 
mefma lei ? e logo teus peccados quizeram 
que trouxeiTes hum exemplo com que mais fc 
manifeftalfe tua torpeza, e maldade. A lei nao 
diz que o hotnem he arvore do campo: per- 
gu nca fe he arvore do campo>e tu affirmas quc 
ellao diz. 

Define elle a alma dos animaes , e diz que 
be huma lubftan^ia incorporea, indiuifivel. £ 
fe bem Ariftoteles, e outros Philofophos que 
poferam qualquer alma incorporea, confide- 
raram , e comprenderam na mente alguma 
coula incorporea a que chamaram alma , toda 
via diferam que nao podia eftar fem corpo , e 
era dizendo , alma, he ne^efiario dar corpo 
animado della, e nao fe dd alma fem corpo. c 
afsi importa pouco para nofiTo fim avirigoar 
eftaqueftam. fomente refponder^mos ao quc 
diz efte Philofopho no leu cap 4. que fe a al¬ 
ma tivefte alguma coufa de corpo , fendo quc 
ella eftd vnida ao corpo , le feguiria eftarem 
dous corpos juntamente em hum lugar, coufa 
contraria, e repugnante, E dizemos que a al¬ 
ma tem feu lugar no corpo como tem as ou- 

tras 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


179 


Das 1%/ 

tris pines delle; c pofto que no corpo hi ner- 
tos i e ba carnet e ha oflbs, e eftei corpos fe 
idiam juntamente no corpo, nemporilofao 
incompativeis , ncm fe penetram huns com 
osoutrqp, masunidos, ejuntosfaiemhum 
corpo compofto. Tempoisa alma feulugar 
primeiro no cora^am, oqual fe chama fonte, 
e prin^ipio de vida,por qoexlclle faem as veas, 
e artenas da vida, que fe etvafnao vafos, e rc- 
colhimento do efpirito viral,mifturddo } eurtf- 
do com o fangue, e quando o fangue fe repaf- 
te pello corpo, naofazdous corpos em ntun 
lugar, mas faz hum corpo, que confta de car- 
ne, e fangue. Affi que a alma he o efpirito vi¬ 
tal no fangue; agora veia elle fe a efte efpirito 
no fangue quer chamar, fubftan^a Corpo- 
rea, ou incorporea, c oquequizerlhecna- 
mardmos. Pordm fe de rnelhor a detlarar aos 
homens com quern fala, e nam lhes diga feca- 
mente que as almas (aqui entram as dos ani- 
maes) famhuma fubftan<jia incorporea, fe m 
lhes dizer que coufa feia effe fubftan$ia, por 
que quern o ouve ia cuida que as almas das va- 
cas, fendo fubftan^ias incorporeas, poder&m 
eftar fora do corpo. 

Deixo de referir as diferentes fenten^as dos 
Philofophos fbbre afinar, e declarar o fer da 
alma, e que cada hum lhe deu efte fer confor- 
me ao que entendeo avia lido o prin^ipio das 
coufas, como, os que diferam que o fogo ele- 

I men- 



180 


’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


ilS Siartu 

mental* era © prio^ipio, poferam o fer4a alma 
da mefma natureza do fogo; e os que pofprao 
o ar por prinfipio, poferam o fer da alma da 
natureza do ar. Os que poferam a agoa pot 
principle)* poferam o fer da alma da na natu- 
reza da agoaje os que poferam quatro elemen- 
tos por prints pio de tudo> de todos os quatro 
elementos poferam o fer da alma. Deixo, co- 
mo digo> de referir eftes juizos, e outros que 
iervem para difpuras pbdofophicas ,pois nam 
fam de noflo propofico. 

Diz ipais o phdofopho que mal poderd bu- 
ma tarn baixa, e vil materia como he o fangue 
fer alma.E de verdade fingido philofopho que 
fem rouitoeftudar por Ariftoteles, com a pni- 
lofophja rational qpe Deos me enfinou, te 
pofloeubem moftrar, quam grande feiatua 
torpeza uaquillo mefmo, que conforme tua 
profi/Tam devias fabcr. Dizeme negador da 
verdadenconttafeito, e falfo, a materia de que 
nos nos geramos de que quilates he ? nam he 
hum humor da naturcza ao fangue, e dos fo- 
beios do alimcnto, que a natureza toma para 
fi? pois fe defte humor fe gera a alma dos ani- 
maes (deixemos agora o homem ) que incon- 
veniente grande achasque o humor fangui- 
neo feia a mefma alma, que fuftente, anime, 
e ten ha cm pd o mefmo animal gerado de tal 
humor? O teu Ariftoteles diz que a gera^am 
fefazporcalor, ecomcalor, equedocaloc 

toma 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


181 


Dm TrsditcZs, 12 > 

tom* fci aaninra^am, e a vida nam heoutra 
coufa que 4 dura^am dcfte calor, o qual fe nao 
be refrefeado do ar fe con(ume,e a materia da 
vida be humor, e calor. Pois fe ifto aflihe,e no 
fanguefbroosanimadosenutridos, eprimci- 
to que feiamos,eile he, e defpois de fer, por 
feubencfi^Io vivemos,e femelle nem ha vida, 
sem ha fer,como m chamas ao fatigue nomes, 
materia vil,e baixa,que nem vive,nem he par¬ 
te do corpo? O fangue vital he a mefma vida, 
e fe o cora^am fe chama fonte, e prinf ipio de 
vida, be, porquedellemaoa, e fe reparte efte 
fatigue por todas as outras partes do corpo; E 
o mefrno cora^am fonte de vida, por amor do 
tnefmo fangue vive, e fe o fangue Ihe faltaffe, 
nem vivera,nem fora fonte;que a fonte fe cha- 
maaffi, poramordaagoa, queemfitem, e 
della corre, doutra maueira ia nam feria fon¬ 
te. Parte integrante do corpo como tu dizes 
(nam fei para que falas latim com homens que 
te nam entendero) fei a a mao, e feia o p 6; mas 
fern mao, e fern pe poderdmos viver, etoda 
via nam poder^mos viver fern fangue; logo a- 

3 uiUo fern que nos qam podemos viver, feri 
e raais eftima que o outro, que faltando etn 
nos, indanosfiquaofer, eavida. Eaoque 
cortou huma m4m pedemlhe bumamam, e 
bafta,mas ao que tirou a vida pedemlhe o fan¬ 
gue todo. Logo comotu chamas nomes ao 
langue? Em jfirn efte es tu, e fendo efte, e que 

I 2 na 



182 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


130 Exam 

narna philofophia fazes tantas erradas, me 
chamas a mim idiota nella, e dize^que me a- 
trevo a definir almas fern tua li^en^a. Pois 
nam cuidards, efpirico mao, que inda que nam 
profeffei logica, e philofophia, nam ferei cam 
defemparado da not^ia della, e que fei que 
coufa lam defini^oens, que ifto me foi ne- 
ceflario iaber para o que profeffei, etambem 
leo por Ariftoteles? Pois fe quizercs ver os 
curios das tuas artes mais perfeitos do aue tu 
os efcrevefte nos bancos , em meu poder os 
achards. 

Seguefe moftrar que afli como a lei diz que 
a alma da carne eftd no fangue, no meimo 
eftd, ou confifte a alma do homem, ja que ef* 
te mao negador nos obriga a provar coufa 
tarnclara. Provafepello texco no Gen. cap. 

Gen. 9« neftas palavras: Tam fomente a carne com Jna 
alma , fen fatigue nao comer cis. E de verdade 0 
vojfofangue a vojfas almas demandari: de mao de 
toda a beitademandarei a tile: e de mao do homem, 
de mao do varao fen irmao demandarei a alma do 
homem . Ja fe vd claro do texto que da mefma 
maneira que a lei diz que o fangue be a alma 
do animal, aflidiz tambem que o fangue do 
homem he iiia alma. Omefmopodera mof¬ 
trar por muitos ourros lugares, mas efcufado 
he fazer mais allega^oens fobre coufa tarn 
manifefta, e bum texto bafta. 

2 . Se prova pot demonftra£am,porqueaffi 

como 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


183 


Ddstraeticccs, i ^ r 

como o animal raorre tirandolhe o fangue, da 
mefma maneira morre o homem, e fe fua al¬ 
ma nam conhftira no fangue como confifte a 
do animal bruto, nam morrerao homem por 
falta do fangue,poi$ outra era a fubftan^ia que 
o animava. 

Vamos ao ultimo defatino defte perverfo 
nam menor que muitos dos feus, em que nos 
accufa de ignora9ia,por que nao fabemos,co- 
mo elle fa be, que q fangue do homem nam he 
prohibido por lei,e moftremos,pois nosobri- 
ga,e traz a ifto for$ados,fua impia e groffa Ne¬ 
gara. 

1. A lei natural eniina que o fangue do ho* 
mem nao he comida aparelhada para outro 
homem, e por confeguinte vedada: A lei divi- 
na nao revogou a lei natural,ne difpenfou co- 
tra ellarlogo aquillo que era vedado por lei na* 
rural, tambem fiquou vedado pella lei divina. 

2. A lei divina con^edeo ao homem a car- 
nc dos animaes por comida, vedadolhe o fan¬ 
gue, e nam lhe congedeo a carne, e menos o 
ftgue de outro home:logo aquillo que lhe nao 
co9edeo,ifo lhe deixou vedado, e afli lhe dei- 
xou vedado a carne, e fangue de outro home* 

3. A lei divina diz que vingari o fangue do 
homem da mam da befta, e da mam de outro 
homem, e afli veda o derramamento delle: lo* 
go bem veda o u(o delle* 

4 * A carne do animal que nam rumia, c 

I 3 fende 



184 


■URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


frov. 

20 . 


132 BxdU$t 

fende unha, e tnuito mais o longue he vedado 
por lei: O homem nam rumia, nem tem unha 
para fender: logo acarne,e muito mats o fen- 
gue do bometn feci vcdado por lei* Emfima 
pern nam podeir mais por diante, vcnbam 
Dridas, e venham frees, e enfreenfc com elles 
bo cat cam mis, edesenfreadas* 

Fiqua que o cora^am do bo mem, e por 
confeguiotc obomexn,bc animado do feu ian- 
gue,e faltandolbe o longue, lhefalta a alma ; o 

H“ «• P h '» fe 

comum, e niaqt, porque aoque nam tem lon¬ 
gue chamimos defanimado,e quando hum ef- 
to propinquo 0 morrer, e fe Ihe ram esfriaudo 
os pet, e partes inferiores, dizemos que ia alii 
nam temalma, porqueo fanguelbe falta, e 
com elle o color, e affi portudo fe moftra fer 
ocorpo animado do figue. Oiugar daleique 
allega: Ndi ftuhortrd 4 moo eUbtix*) t moode - 
q*e * aim* e!U pettberarid : faz mais a 
nolio propofito j e diz que feria canto como 
penborar na alma,por que o pa 6 ganhado por 
meio das moos, fe vinha a converter em lan- 


gue, que era a alma real, e verdadeira, como 
aelle tinha dito nam huma f 6 vez. 

O que mais diz que o bometn anda direito, 
e outras impertinences, tudo fad parvoi^es 
que nam mere 9 em repofta, e f 6 lbe queremos 
rooftrar que nam entende o verfo : Candea do 
Smr a alma do homem : pois o applica fern pro- 

pofito. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


185 


Dm* tnutuHJ. 

pofofr* B quet dizer, que olume da rrsa6 qoe 
peosposaobomera, be candea, qua ihe fer- 
re de ita par* leu govern©,como tambem Ibe 
jerrea lei*e affi diz oatro rerio: Cdndtd* m**- 
d*mcnt9 y id In Imx.. Que at a ifto com a immor- 6 
tolidadc, de que fo fe moAra fer o bonacm ra¬ 
tional? 


Cdf.id. Qme 0 htmsrngtrsft*fimiHsdtttf. 

D IZ o inimigo no feu cap*?* Dado hum 
abfardo fe feguem mottos, e affi fe re 
agora neftc concrariador falto de letrsU , que 
tomando porterta, e rerdadeiraHama pro- 
poC^am falfe t a faber, que a alma do ho mem 
era affi como a alma do fertkto, logo eem com 
outro ta) err© dizendo, qoe tambem os bra- 
tos.eos bomens > feo femelhaotes, e iguaes 
nageratam, eqoe as abuts dot bomens pro* 
tedetn da materia, affi oomo della pro^edem 
as almas dos brutos. 

Quern nam tem vergonba, e roeute fern 
peioemcoufasde mats pezo, quemuitohe 
que fe desarergonhe tambem agora cm ontras 
mais lerea. Nas letras nai^i eu, e da mama 
poiTo dizer me riraram para ellas,po is de oito 
annos entrei na grammatica Latina; e cram 
ellas tam proprias, e naturae* para mim, quo 
a todo o mais fortava o tempo para o dar a 
ellas. Affiemdiferenteseftuaos gaftei aida- 

I 4 de. 



186 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


*34r E&tmt 

de, epeftoque oiuba profiflam foi eftudar 
dixeita, acuriofidademe levava tambem a fa- 
bct o que diziao 03. Thco logos v e a revolver 
feu&CKxitos. Setinhabom cavadorcom que 
cavar nefte eftudo, nad direi eu agora, e efpe- 
rareiatefteraunho daquelles,que trn materias 
delle me tratarao, e conbe^erao. Pois atd on- 
de ft ha de eftender a malujia , e desavergo- 
nhado atrevlmem© • de hum ddventurado, 
deshonra da medi^ina, pezado,e torpe de en- 
tenditnento, que ftm ter com que, fcatreve 
a quener dar coupes , efalarem let rasa quern 
lhe.pode enfinar a coteoder os mefmos textos 
deCialeno, que dllc contra rezao trilha nas 
maons fertdo cad pouco.aparelhado? £ 

Vindo 90 propolieo principal: o homera 
gera feu ftmelhante^mtodo perftitoje he ek 
ta copelu(ao tad rcrdadeira por rezao, e por 
lei, que coni fer Cbriftao Luthero , e ter por 
ft que as almas fadimmortaes, nam pode ne- 
gala. E advirte elle muiro bem, que era cou-» 
laalheadajuft^a divina,eocorporar huma ef- 
ftfipia liropa, epuraem bumcorpo immun- 
do, e peccador. Outro fi nam inlpirou Deos 
na mother que fabricou da coftela do homem 
cfpirito de vida, por que era cottela de ho- 
mem vivo/eanitnado* e nam tinha ne^efli- 
dade de nova alma* O mefmo vem a dizer e(- 
te efpirito mao fern fe fentir potto que elle o 
pam queira confettar. 



■URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


187 


D/tstrMttictics, 

Viz die quc por todos os philofophos, o 
medicos he refebido que da virtude feminal 
do hornem profede a faculdade da alma fen- 
fkiva, emotiva em que ohomem he feme- 
lhance aos brutos, e affi nam fiqua inferior 
aos mefmos brutos na poten^a generative* 
pois de fua femente fae o mefmo grao de 
alma que fae da femente dos brutos, e inda 
mais perfeito. Affi que ja por fua boca te- 
mos que ohomem gera a alma de outroho* 
mem, com que vive, fente, e fe move* Agora 
vem a alma intelle&iva de fora, e entra no ho- 
mem, e pois que ohomem ja fern ella vivia, 
fentbue fe movia. efta alma nova que lh? 
entta, ja nam he paraviver, femir, e mover- 
fe, por que tudo ifto tinha o gerado antes de 
ella entrar. Logo efta alma uem para falar no 
homem, e nam tern nenhum cotnmer^io com 
o corpo, nem efU ligada com elle para o ani-» 
mar, coufa que elle ja tinha. Efte no cap. 3. 
reprova a opiniam de Platam, dizendo que o 
principal eneito da alma, he vivificar o corpo 
que animA, e a alma que nam fizefTe efte offi¬ 
cio, falaria no homem, como falavam os efpi- 
ritos nos idolos.Logo a alma rational que en- 
tra no corpo ja vivo, eanimado, enao entra 
para lbe dar vida, entra para falar nelle, e affi 
a opiniam de Platam fiqua outra vez em pe, 
on no homem lhe nam entra outra alma no- 
?a, c q enteoder be huma propriedade, 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


t}6 Exam 

e virtudenam tpartada da materia, masque 
della mefitia iahio alii como fahio ver, ouvir, 
lembrarfe y e as mais virtudes da alma fenfiti- 
va. Afli qoe efte fern (e fentir, diz coufas de 
fodo contrarias, e nam ftbendo de que vfller- 
ft, como a falfidade nam pode eftar, elle mef- 
mo fe fere, e fe degola. 

Tambem eu Ihe quizera perguntar ft a alma 
rational a^erraffe de deterie no caminho,e ft 
arranhaffc, e embara^afTe era alguma filva da 
#ua cafta, e afli ft efquc<jefTe de fazer fiia ior- 
nada, e naf^effe o gerado com alma ftnfitiva, 
faltatldolbe a rational, que cafta de animal a- 
fia defer efte gerado? ft am dcfalor como 
pegs, ftandaracafa das lebres como ealgo, 
eu no campo comendo erra entre as beftas,da 
tnaneiraque emoutro tempo andoo Netra- 
chad nefar? Em fim he mais que locura dizer 
qneo hoedem nam gera feu ftmelbanre* 

Refpondeelleao fiindameuto que pofemos 
fobre dizer a eferitura que Adam gerara 4 fua 
imagem, fua femelhan^a, que ifto fe entendia 
pellas qualidadcs, e virtudes, que nam ouve 
nos filhos primeiros. E alii para fazer ftu erro 
bom, vem a condenar Hebei por mao ^ cuia 
ofTerta nos diz 4 mefmd eferitura que o Snor 
re^ebeo, indigo 9crto de fua bondade. 

Segue mais no capr io. e fobre condenar- 
mosos que dizem que Deos criou as almas 
todas por junto, e os que duem qoe por cria- 

9*6 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


189 


Dm traJscoes . t j; 

fzo nova as cria cada dia,e as infande not ©or«* 
pos, efcreve die taes palavras. Naofeifcal- 
gum legiflador falou mais atrevido,e refoluco 
que e&e efpertador da corpe,e iaha muico fe* 
pukada feita de Epicuro, aue por fer cm an* 
tcrit tad gmve, ou por melnor dizer, tam leve 
cm feus olbos, nam fe atreveo, oem lhe pare# 
$eo allegar lei, nem rezocs, mas nenbuma po+ 
dia aver para dizer que huns fonbarara desath* 
nos, equeoutros tern fracos, e caducos fun# 
damentos, fendo 9010 que ifto das almas,co* 
mo, e quando entrao nos corpos,be humados 
grand es maravilhas de Deos; e fe elle as criou 
juntas,e as tern no mundo das almas, ou as vai 
criando buma, e buma, que faz iio a noffo ca* 
fo,ou que mais lhe cuftava fazelo aili que affi? 

Por 9erto fe hum cavalo falara, nao refpost* 
dera defta maneira, e agora moftra bem ao 
mundo efte malino, nam ter firmeza, funda* 
mento , nem f6 naquilloque fegue, poisque 
fendo, corao he, verdade, que a fua tradi^am 
que elle, e os feus dizem veo da bocadome£» 
rao Deos, enfina, que criou Deos as almas no 
pri^ipio, e as manda aos corpos em ^erto 
tempo, agora diz que ifto he coufa a nos oc- 
cul ta,e que fofTe afltou fofle affi/> mefmo he* 
Que trad^am, ou que f6 he logo atua,torpc # 
c mao, pois nam tens 9erteza do que cres, e 
hasvergonbadefiiftentar, e defender oqne 
ella diz, e hora falas como Pharifeo, bora fa* 



190 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


lascomo Chriftam*c nemdefendes o teu>nem 
odo Chriftad approf as*mas como grou fiquaa 
comhumpdnoir, c dc tai mancira ca nt as de 
dons cborosqaetensa cantar dc nenhum, e 
cm refoluf ad dates que nao fabcs? ails que ia 
negaiatuafd, cmoKrasqacanamtcns. Pois 
eChriftam Romano fe Inc perguntaretn co* 
moiftofeia, femdemora haderefponderque 
Dcoscria as almas de nofO, e por novacria- 
ya as infimde nos corpos > e qnando nam 
tenbaprovas com qne provar, diz que afElho 
manda crcr a fua ft. 

Dizes qne eu nam me atrevi t nem me pa- 
ir$eo, allegarlei, nem rezoens em prof a do 
que dizia; no que bem moftras ten pouco fi¬ 
ber, e tua torpeza* Tu que propoens > e dizes 
qne as almas xorao criadas por junto(ja nao fei 
o que dizes pois que tu mefmo o nao fabes)tu 
tens nefeifiqade de prof ar por lei, e por re¬ 
zoens. E por que tu nad podes prof ar , nem 
poriei, nem por rezoens, e as tuas prof as fao 
prom de fallo depraf ador, mais dignas de cf*» 
que de repoffeumuito deieio terd de ef- 
cveferqud fobre nugas tacs gaftar feu tempo* 
etvabamo. Em fim agora te mado ao curfb da 
dbdedica Conimbri^enfe no a. tomo, quef- 
tad i* fobre o primeiro livro das pofterio- 
res de Ariftoteles artigo 2, e ao mefmo A- 
fiftoteles nos lugares am allegados» qne pois 
csPhilofopho Ariftotelico, oom ferd man- 

darce 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


191 


Dm trddicoesi T39 

Jarte ao ten meftre, e forrar o trabalho de e£* 
crever. Para outros que 14 nao podemirnani 
quero dar mais que huma rezam que f6 bafts 
para confundir teu erro. Efte raundo nara ha 
de ter fim, nem a gera^am fe ha de acabar (fe 
tudizesque hade acabar ouveras de trazet 
procura^am dosourros Pharifeus tcusirma- 
ons que nam querem que elle acabe.) Se as 
almas foram criadas juntamente, como efta 
cria^am fe nam pofTa dar cm infinito, e feia 
nefefTario que tenham numero, inda que fe 
eftendaa muitos milhares, he for^aque i'endo 
as gera£oens infinitas, venham a faltar as al¬ 
mas, e afli da femente humana nafyam alguns 
corpos imperfeitos, e defalmados. E fe dife- 
res que eftas almas fe andam defenfadando de 
huns corpos em outros, como efte defenfado 
lhes nam aia de durar fempre > e no ter^eiro 
corpo fe acaba, inda fiqua a mefma rezam, e 
he for9a que venhao a faltar, porque o infini¬ 
to por major numero que Ihe ajuutes fempre 
cft4 pedindo mais. 

Agora fe tu falas ia como Cbriftao Roma¬ 
no, e nao achando mndameto em teu erro, tc 
paffas a dizer que cria Deos novas cria£oens,c 
tambcm cria %tmlnhas negras que infunde no 
alarve.papagente.torpp^ fero^defagragiadas 
almas q; de tao aiTo eltaao def^eraS a tata mi- 
ieria)e para proyar efte fonho me has de roan- 
dar 4 carta dc Lead h efcritaaTuribioBifpo 



192 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


* 4 ° 

de Aftariii,cao Con^flio Bracbarenfqea nao 
fen Cliriftim^e aflihc ncyeflario qac fales co- 
■Ago, como com filbo de Abraham Jfchac, e 
Jabacob, cam baftardo, mas legititno. 

£ fc finalmente ncm como Pharifeo quo 
pra&ffas falas, ncm como Chriftam Romano 
qoe oam profeflas, epornamacharneftesca- 
arinfaos obrigo,vens a remeter tudo ao poder, 
t fabcr divino: acaba ia falfo mao defenca- 
minhado,deixa atalhos difficultofos.pedrcgo- 
fare defviados,e endireita pella eftrada fa^il, 
Kmpa,efcgara } edize fern medo doerrado 
nfido cm qoe adoras. aquiflo d a lei, e a rezao 
eecnfina,e manda dizen E hendifi* tilts Dus.* 
difid tiles Dus,geres, msdtspUcai . Na6fc$as as 
ooras de Deos partidas, e imperfeitas j e fc te 
parece maho que de homa materia tal, como 
ne a fcraewe humana>(aia buma obra tarn per- 
feita,e efmerada^ dizes que os melhores phi- 
loibphos (coitado de ti trifte philolopbo)tro- 
caram a contempla^am de nuobraemadmi- 
ra^oens, faze tu tambem o mefmo,e dot efles 
degraos vem a conhe^er alguma coufa do gra¬ 
de poder, efaber do obradorquetaesobras 
pode, e fabe obrar, e nam Jimites efle mefmo 
poder, dizendo que nam podia Deos tirar da 
lemeote humana criatora rational, e aria mik 
ter qoe a rezam viefTe defora por alcatruzes; 

r io obrador que obroo tama di verfidade 
aaimaesdando a-cada qual diferente ink 

tin&o 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Dm trtdsCHs, (41 

oaAo natural , e alga ns aventaiou taflfo qti• 
oovemuitos que diieram, e quizeram defen¬ 
der que tinbam u(o de rezam, e todos lhe vent 
a coe^eder que imitam a rezam humana, e al- 
gumas vezes a pruden^ia, pofto que nam feia 
pordifeurfo, por obra dos fentidos mterio- 
resjetodaefta diverfidadede animaes tiradd 
virtude da femente que nelles pos.-nam lhe (e- 
ri difficultofo, e muito menos lhe fer 4 impof- 
fivel tirar da (emente humana oucra criatura 
iemclhante humana; e affi como pode, e quiz 
obrar , e corapor effe corpo com aventaiada 
arte,e compou9am,tambem pode,e quiz darw 
lhe grao tnais adiante, e fazer que ioile parti- 
^ipaote de rezam>e difcurfo, e conforme aifo 
lhe fabricou o cora^am, e os fentidos. 

Antes que vamos por diante, e peyote que 
nam te enfades, nam polio deixar de te fazer 
huma pergunta. Nam ha poucas boras que tu 
me dilefte noteu cap.4. que o entendimento 
humano nam tinhalimite etti entender, e po¬ 
dia entender em tudo o que Deos entendia, o 
criado, e incriado, e inda na eilen^ia do me£» 
mo Deos? pois como agora dizes que nao po- 
des entender as obrasde Deos, e como fegera 
a criatura no ventre de fuamai? podias enten¬ 
der o incriado,e podes entender a eflen^ia do 
mefmo Deos, e nam podes entender as obraa 
que elle obra cada dia , e as que obra cornigo 
mefmo? Era Em eu me refolvo que tu nam cf- 



194 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


143 €* 4 m * 

fis peflo qaedizes.es ham torpe falib,?aib de 

rtgeira , * de mentiras, t toraemos a noflo 

lentido. 

Paraafcarminhascoufas difefteque evert 
efperrador da torpe feica de Epicuro,fepulta- 
daja de muitos dias, e poc que nam yas iem 
humaora^am, firate Deo* ahngoa> e a mao 
com que cars palavras efcrevefte, e agora te- 
nhohum pouco quefazer contigo, eteque- 
ro moftrar que tu, e os teas feguis as pizada* 
de Epicuro, pondes o bem no deleite, e tam- 
bem negais a juft 19a divina. Nam ibis vos a- 
quelles qae dizeis que o dia doSabbado he dia 
oe deleite, equeneencoraendan^a, eobra 
boa ajuntardefros com vo i&s molheres, en- 
cher abarriga, e quantas mais vezes o fizer- 
des mais compris a encomendan^a, allegando 
para prova defta verdade hum verib de Jefa- 
niahu, torpe, e aveiadamente entendido por 
5 ?os? Porter to eftes mefmos ibis, enam io- 
taente pondes o bem no deleite , masufais 
delle deiordenadamente, e da maneira que f6 
Epicuro podera ufar, pois abufais do dia do 
Sabbado,dia iandificado a Deos,em quC mais 
eradevidoapartardos ajuntamentos da car- 
ne para com corpo mais limpo poder cantar 
hum pialmo a Deos, e contemplar a grandeza 
deiiias obras, do que contaminar o mefmo 
corpo com hum ado de que ie contrahe im- 
mundifia, e fe faz mais torpe que claro o en- 

teu- 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


195 


D*t trsdkdes. 14} 

leadimentOjCarrcgandoo fbbreifbdecomcrj 
g bebtt demafiado, e buicando modot qoe 
fOt^nram deaf petite para voflas defordeno* 
das brntalidades.E aifi eftais tornados Epicn* 
rot do dekite,e Epicuros defbrdenados,pon- 
do por encotnendanf a fazer no dia do Sabbfc* 
docoufas que mais fcdeviam defviar qoe pro* 
cant* 

Ajufti^a dirina negate, porque he condo* 

£un re^ebida entre ros,e d icei s: todo JjrneUxd 
mtllespart*nomendsnindonro^ Efenam heal- 
g a m maocomoeo, bcrege, cfcomoosado, a— 
nartadodevosi, todososmais, oodehama 
Jornada, on die outra fornada, com homa ora* 

<p o f oa outro reined io, no mondo vindouo 
sots areis de achar,porque fois filhos de Ifrad, 
e tides prmlegio, lobre que dormis cofiados, 
fittendoajufti^adisinajufti^aderefpeitos, e 
qoe para yos he hums,para os ootros ha defer 
outra, nara fendo yos nas obras melhores,cor- 
tando, e deffaeendo os nervos da lei, e fazen- 
do confian^a cm coufas vans. Mas o Snor vos 
reponde* EmMm dife Decs: ejne ati jmra cors- p fiU 
tar mens eftetntos, e tomes 0 men concerto fibre tna 
bocdt etu dborrefefie0 enfino , e Urtfafieminims 
fsUvrm for den** de ti . SevtasoUdrao, ejons- 
ftnxjes com etU, e com os edulxeros tna porfao. Tna 
kocaekriasporno am/, e tun lingo* compunha on- 
gene. Ajfentnvnfie conn* ten irmaofolavas , con- 
tree filbo detn*m*id*v*s dcsbonra . £ftasftzefte, 

J K g cold 2 



196 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


144 Sxame 

i taler: cttidajle epeefend*feria eemo tu : argmrte* 
kdj ardenarei em tew elhos.T odas eftas It aebao 
cm vos, ecom .tomar a lei na boca,e filar nd* 
la,ja cuidais fiquais efcapados,fazendo a jufti- 
9a divina a voilomodo. Mas ella vosdizque 
nam be afli como vos a fazeis, qne vos ha de 
julgar i e porVos rado diante. Afli vos julea, 
e afli vos paga, e com tudo nada curais dews 
prizes, e elperais pello do inferno; que fe vos 
dizeis que o ha , para vos eft* guardado j pot 
que quern nefta vida mere^e tamos males, ht 
for 9a que tambem os mere^a na outra,porque 
nefta promete Deos aos bons bens;e aos maos 
tnales; e os males avidos nefta film menfagei. 
cos dos que dizeis futuros. Afh nao vos pro- 
anetais faHameinebens futurodye largai as co» 
di^oens de Epiouro, que punhao bem node- 
leite, e negavaa providentdivina, a qualfc 
bem vos nao Hegais^fazeisinjuria* fua jufti^a, 
pois a vindes a fazer jufti^a de rcfpeitos . 

Cap. it. Rtffonde*0 it. cotterariosedjallegaeiet 
cjuc traz para provar beta em ontravida. 

D Eixando outros erros, a que ja fiqua ref- 
pondido, diz o philoiopho lophiftico 
que damos duas contraditorias ambas verda- 
deiras.por que difemos que primeiro noorria 0 
efpirico vital no home que morrefle o meftno 
bo mem , e alii con^ediamos tempo em que 0 

ho* 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


197 


Dm trudkots. 147 

homem eftava root to>ena6 eftava mwrtojefo- 
brc ifto tnompba uo cabo,e diz, veiacadabu 
como a falfa opioiab por fi mefmo fedefttue. 

£ melhor direi eu agora:veja cada hum a falfi- 
dade de tun lorpe lingqa , ejulge por aqui a 
tortura, e vaidade de luas rezocns „ p funda- 
mentos. Poftoquedifemosqueoefpiritovi- 
tal morria primeiro,nem por iio conifederoos 
tempo em uaejo para o homem a.ver de mor- 
rer, ma> qijizemos moftrar, 09010 fegpe, qua 
fe extingpe, o efpirico? epor fe extinguir 
morria o honje>e nao morria o bosn£*eftqua- 
va o efpinitp.Afli que immjcdiatamente morrc 
o home,tanto que ihe faltou o efpirijjo vital, e 
a mefma falta he a raefma morte, cotwdiz o 
verfo: for a fea tffttrtto,(or*4rd 4 ftta ttrrd . Mas 
ninguecn eltraohe efte eftilo falio, e avefado 
defte efpirito enxabido.e amofinader.que efte 
he o feu coftume,e natoreza,e affi.trabalhanS- 
roos por forrar o trabalho com nam fair, nem 
refponder a todos feus defvarios, e tenta^oes. 

Para provar bens , e .round© vindouro traz 
elle taes aliega^ocns:^ naecrera ver em a boeU- ?f. 17? 
de do Scnhor em a terra das vidas, E Abigail dife Sem.i % 
a David: Eferdaalmade menfnorataeUemmo* if. 

Ihode vidasco 0 Snor Dees ten, E Jehababu lOlhe ^ 

nao vio Deos ftlvo 4 ti , que affi fa fa aot fete effe- 
rao nelle, Como dizer: o bem que o nao vio fe 
nao Deos , Deos o fard faber ao homem que 
cfperar nelle, EDeuter. cap. 2.%. per <j*efej* 

K 2 bem 



198 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


146 £x*m 

btnldti, ifsrrii do*far di*s, Pot boc* do Snor 
ten** i for <J*t feta bm * ti: he Uefte mundo: 
e fords atonytr dias: he no mundo vindouro. e 
Hum. peik> contrario amea^a os maos : talhar fir* 
Mlh*d**dm*efa, porbocado Snor temos, 
mlhar , he nefte mundo: fira tadhada , he no 
mundo vindouro* e affi fiqua provado o mun¬ 
do vindouro. 

A ettas aHega^oens furiofas refponderd- 
Aim com a brendadc que pofla ftr. O verfo 
de Davidfda do bem da vida prefente; e, co¬ 
me do pfafcno ft moftra, em que fe queixa da 
grande perfeguhpao dos inimigos, e ler deixa- 
dt>, e deftrapatado aft de feus chegados, pot 
fim vem aeonfolarft com a conEan^a que di* 
iiatinbaoofta em Deos; e affi tinha $erta ef- 
oettrnife deaver de fer efcapado, e rozar do 
oeto qoe Deos Ihe avia de fazer confervandoo 
yf/fhn- vivo entneos vivos- Qnem okomemqtte deficit 
94* t ritLtSy onto dias ford ver bem, guar da tst* lings* 
dem*i &. Ettas famas vidas, e efte he o bera> 
vida, e bens nefta vida. 

Abigail dift muito bem a David que fazen- 
dobRe o direito, e bom em os olhos do Snor, 
fuaahntftria guardadapor elle de poderde 
Saul,* ede todos feus inimigos, como ft fofle 
hum rttnalhetcque o Siior tivefle nas maons, 
e peHo contrario as almas de feus inimigos 
defprezaria, e atiraria com ellas como le atira 
comhumapedraquefemetcnafunda, eaffi 

as 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


199 


Das Tradkois* 14.7 

as-confumiria. 

O verfo de Jefahiahudiz, que Deos be hu, 
be fiel, e be poderofo, e ninguem vio, nem 
conhe^eo outro Deos falvo a efte fo Deos que 
afli pofla premiar,falvar>e efcapar ao que con- 
fiar, e efperar nelle* 

O verlo de Deuteronomio quer dizer: para 
qae Deos te de bem, e te deixe chegar ao ca- 
bo da idade, e velbi^e, cuio contrario he o 
verfo dos Numeros: tulharfeta talhada a alma 
tjfa: que he quando Deos corta os fios da vida 
ante tempo, como di2ia Chizchi iahu conva- j e fah. 
lef^ido de foa infirmidade, e naohuma fo vez S 8 * 
diz a lei: para que alonges teas dias fobre a terra, 
que 0 Snor Deos tea dantc a ti por her an fa • Sobre 
a terra diz, e nam fobre os ^eos, enellafea- 
longam, e abreviam os dias da vida human* 
(nara entendemos que alongar dias fern ver 
bem, fo chame alongar dias de vida, mas an« 
tes alongar dias de morte ) conforme he fua 
capa^dade. O falfo mente em dizer que da 
boca do Snor temos a interpreta^am que elle 
eforeve; por que antes ella he da boca do per- 
verfo commentador,que da boca do Snor nao 
podem lair, nem facm fomelhanfes fic^oens, 
e desvarios. Conforme aos quais,quando a lei 
diz: apedretar fera apedreiado 0 boil avia miller 
Que difolfemos t&vnbcmiapedr dar ,he no mun- 
do efte: Sera apedreiado j he no rouudo vindou- 
to: c alfi nunqua acabariamos de andar as pe- 

K j dr 



200 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


14.8 Examt 

dradas com cfte boi. A repeti^am da palavra, 
heufadafla lingoa fiebraica, edenota effei- 
to, enegeffidade datyiella coufaj e hos natn 
podemos vernos livres dcftes perctirbados fo- 
rihadores, e deterqtie fazer effl*refpbnder a 
feus dclatioos. Nem he menor dizer 1 que naa 
era ne^effatio propor Deos ao homem os caf- 
tigos do ontro mundojpor que narti ft> era ne- 
£efIario,mas tao impofiivd deixar de o fazer, 
quantp be impoflwd, caber em E>eos injufti- 
ga; por qup injufti^a fora condense ao bomem 
a caftigos nam conhe^idos em vidanam con- 
he^ida* fem priqneirelbe fazer faber* vida, c 
os ca'ftig£>$. 

Cap .12, Rcffonde d i/drios dim dt ctktrarie, 

R Ef^onden£mos-brevem£te aalgumas im- 
pptinen^Ias digna^de rilb defte imperti- 
nente pMlofopho, paffindo por outras muitas 
por nao fazer gt£de volpme lobre coufas taes. 
Diz die no cap, i^.quefe o bomem tivera 
remedip para reftaufar tarn bom humido radi¬ 
cal^ ta6 Doa fubftan£td como perde cada mo- 
mento, eftivera fempreem hum Per, mas por 
que ifto naba ha por ilb morre* ent&m ajun- 
ta: tnals ifo que tetn que fazer com a alma, que 
por ttatureza he immortal? Quern poderA 
atar coufas tam contrarras? Efte diz que o ho- 
mem morre, por que felhe gafta, econfume a 

fub- 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


201 


DdstrdMcHJ, s0 

fobfton^ia. A fubftan^ia com que o bomen 
T ive he a mefma alma, qae vfeifica o homem, 
e morre o horaetn por qae efta felhe gafta, 
econfume, e toda via ella he immortal. Diz 
mais: morrer nam he outra coula que apartar- 
ie a alma do corpo, e tornar cada hum a Tea 
lugar. Pare^e quea alma, e o corpo eraodous 
amigos que fe cncontraram, e defpois de an* 
darem hum pouco a pafTear de cbmpanhia,vi- 
ram que erarn horas de fe ‘recolherem cada 
hum para lua cafa, e affife deram as maoos, e 
fe elpediram, apartandofe ham do oucro. 
Bom apartamento eftc, e bom comar 
para feu lugar, apartamento com que o cor¬ 
po fe toma no que vemos, e os amigos nam fe 
tornam mais a encootrar. Mais dtz que Ihe 
moftreeuqueaalmafoip6paraqueie ejade 
tornar era p6. E nam ve que nem as almas dot 
animaes fam p6, e toda via elles fe tornam em 
p6 por fe extinguir a alma que os anima,a qual 
almalhesdeuDeosdofer, efubftanpadose- 
lementos,alE como deu ao homem. 

Tambem pergunta porque canla Abraham 
fe difpunha a querer fecrificar feu filho fe nam 
efperava bens em outra vida, e porque o filho 
fe deixava matar. Abraham fe difpunha a que¬ 
rer facrificar feu filho, porquecemiaaDeos, 
eamava o mefino filho; e fabi^ Abraham qite 
de desobede9er a Deos,e hdtar cotra elle ne- 
nhu proveito lbe podia rir, pocque qu£ o pq- 

K 4 deria 



202 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


%ft> €x*m 

deria Uvrar da* maons dc Deos? O pai, c o 
filho ambos fiquavam debaixo dajufti^adiri- 
na,que podia to mar major vioganfa por mui. 
tat maneiras. Fezpois Abraham fuaconta, 
como homem que a fabia bem fazer, e entre- 
goufe nas maons de Deos, deque lbe refultava 
muito eanho para fLe para feu mefmo filho,ao 
qoalfiwoo Snor lhe tinba prometido bendi- 
aer, e com efta confianfa lhe refpondeo: • 
SiUrvcri. Exemplopara enfino dosloucos, 
que desobede$encb a Deos coidam qne lhe* 
poderir bem, (em atentarem que nans podem 
zhgirde fua* maons. Ofilho fe deixava matar 
por qne era mofo, e qnando fora homem^e d« 
veraentendimento, e poderde homem, lira 
lbeeftayabemdefViarfe. Epormelhordi- 
Kf» nam mandara entam Deos a Abraham fa- 
2ertal fa 016910, porquenam eftavaem fua 
■nad poder fazelo.Affio mere^imento nao foi 
de Isaac, mas foi de fen pai, ea fen pai pre- 
nioit Deoc direitamente* pofto qne opremio 
redundaife no filho* Oque afR nam forafeo 
ado delfcbac fora voluntario, e ado de ho* 
mem ltvre$emeregia mais em fe deixar mat ar 
do que o pai em o querer fazer ; por que are* 
gradoamorbecome^ardefi, ecadahumfe 
ama a fi regnlarmente primeiro que a outrem. 
E qnando fcia que o mere^iroento do pai em 
ie refolver a fazer talobra, fofle igoal com o 
do fiibo, era convenient* que Deos falaffe 

tam- 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


203 


DMtftiicpSs* Tf9 

ttfabcm com clle para louvar, c gaUrdoaeitufc 
yontade, Aam pofefle tudo era leu pai. 

Vai mats por diaote no cap* 14. e vendoie 
afrontado com tancas auchondades da eferi- 
tura, que clara, e expreflame nte publicao tiao 
lbereftaraohomem outra vida, nera oucro 
bem, e nara cendo repofta que lhes tornar que 
ieia repofta de homero; remetefle a bum def- 
yario, e diz que ellas fomente proyam que o 
bomem morre, e nam ayia para que trazer ta- 
tas allega^oenspara proyar o que fe ve. Afli 
de balde fe caniari quern a efta cabra $cgt 
moftrar provas, erezoens, poisellafakapoe 
tudo, e lacudindo as orelhas (e defpede. 

Poftas de parte outras gra^iofas res poftas, 
e explica^ocnstdiz cUe que fe Jiob quaodo di- 
fe : mao tor may a0 men clbo a verbem ? entendeo' 7 . 
pellos bens, e refurrei^am dos mottos, foi di- 
to de homem pofto em afrigam, eianguftia, 
mas reprendioo dos amigos tornou fobre fi, e 
dile no cap. 11. Em cm a mai aim* d* tide 0 vi¬ 
vo t e efpirito de todAACAr node vat ao. E pois tt>. 
iou diferentes palayras nas almas dosbrutos, 
e do homem.bem moftra a diferenfa que coo* 
be^eentre ellas, epublica que a alma do bo¬ 
mem yivird para fempre, dizendo no cap. 34* 
Sejofefftfibre cUe feu cortfao , fineSfirito, efim 
Affopro recolberiAfATA fi, mcrrerU tod* a uorno 
jnmtamtnu^oltomemem fife tortktriA, No qua! 
bigtr confola ao iufto , elhedtz que no outro 

K $ 



204 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


tig* Extmt 

madolhopagar* Deo$,e quequando fe con- 
fuma toda acriatar-a , foo o home*, inda que 
efteu debaixo do poo, toenail fobre clle, c 
▼inf*. 

Adi que vcni'O bom homem a dizer que 
liob falou comodoudo, mas que logo fe ar- 
rependeo. e para' proTar que fe arrepedeo al- 
kgacomhum^erfodehum capitulo, cm que 
omekno Iiobpdciia cord os amigos ,e lhes 
diz que aquilloqoe dies dizera fabcm os ju- 
mentos, e as aves dos ^cos , a terra, e os pei- 
xes do mar, porque quern naofabc que Deos 
he Snor, e criador,e em fua ma6 eftd a vida de 
todasas criaturas ? Affi que nao fe arrepende 
liob do quetem dito, antes aperta mais com 
os amigos que o apertavao. Eque propolito 
riohaY rezaft de mulo) negar com a africao os 
bens do outro rrmndo,com os quais fe ouvera 
antes de cdnfolar„e efperar nello a paga de ta- 
tastirtudes, quantas ellemefmode (i publica 
refpondendo aos que o condenavao? As pala- 
▼fas de verfo,alma, e efpirito, que quer apar- 
tar,tanto (ervem aos animaes, como ao home 
em todos os lugares da eferitura , fobre que 
hetergonba gaftar tempo. Agora f6 querd- 
mos declarar a eftabeftao vcrlo do cap. 34. 
quemal corrompe. 

No cap. 34. na6 fala liob , comoefte falfo 
diz, mas fala hum dos amigos , e nao confola a 
ninguem,mas diz que o home na6 fe pode por 

em 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


205 


DastraJiceet. tfj 

em iuizo com Deos (ifto fabia Jfob tnuiro bS) 
c que fe Deos entrafle em iuizo com o mtuw 
do,e o efpeculaflc avia mais-que efpera® 
remote* c fim de toda a criatura .Sefofiejfiefibre 
eUcJmeorofaei fe Deos efpecukfle, ecoma- 
ten^ad olbaflc paraohomem, e inqui rifle fuas 
obras para o iufgar conforme ella $,fiu effirito, 
efin afifre recotixfuforafi: faria Deos 9'cflsff 
delleo cfpirito, eakoto vital, e ^eflando: efi 
fir aria toda a ear tiej Hat amen to , eo bomem em po 
fi toruatia. tudo fe confumiria, e acabaria: 
nad averia mundo, nad averia homem. E que, 
por o cora^ao* feia, olharpara a obra, e me- 
re^imento della, he coufa por fi clara ,efe 
moftra por outros lugares. Que com fa o bomem . 
fora que fief at ca fedellt > e far a quefonbas a eU '* 
leteuceracaol eovijites em as manhunt , forma* 
memos o efftecuLras ? at l ejuando nao te afartas 
demimf O bomem, Senhor, he hum vafo de 
ignoranijia, e de maldade : nad olhes com 
aten9ao as obras de tal criatura, nem ponhas 
a ellas teu cora^adjpor que nadpode fair bem 
davifita,entrando tu atomarlne refiden^a* 
affi dife Abigail a David no tempo que elle 
vinha para caftigar a ingrata, etorpe repof- 
ta de feu raarido. NaOfonba, rofo , menfienber San. i. 
feu coraoao ae varao mao efte, fiobre Nabalyfor tjue 2 1 

conforme o feu ttome affi elle $ Nabal 0 feu nome , 
e farvoifc com elle. Demaneira que, por o co- 
ra^ad, he olbar para a obra, e a declared 

do verlo 



206 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


sf4 E x am e 

dovcrfobe&que fiquadada, efea todas as 
tortat ,c £alf«s deftas falfas lingo as oarcffemos 
dc refpoodcjr faltaria o pope!** jfakaria a vida. 

Cap, ij. Reffende a mau dim, t meftraa* qua 
0 hemem fa* femclkanfa da £V«. . 


N*m. 

Ii. 


N O cap. 1 y.dizmaiso philofopbo, que 
quern diz ao homem que coma,fala com 
o homem vivo que tem alma , mas a ella nam 
Ihe toca nada dilb, por que a alma nam come, 
nembebe. Conforme a efta doutrina, pois 
cue a alma defta figura efti tarn defapegada 
do corpo >que nam tem parte nas coufas delie, 
antes anda alii empenaj quern defpenafTe ef- 
ta alma defte corpo, nenhuma pena mere^ia, 
tirava huma fantafma do mundo , e a alma to 
nava a feu lugar. Nam lhe lembrou ao pobre 
homem o que feus pais diferam no deferto 
queixandofe do comer, que o Snor lbes dava. 
£ agora nojfa aim* eft a feca , nao vcm nojfos olhos 
eouftyfalvo, »M».Ncm lhe lembrou que a afri. 
pam da alma, he afri^am do corpo todo,e nao 
cfUaalma famquandoo corpo efU doente. 
Diz mais fobre o ver fo: off irito andante, e nam 
toward: que fe elle anda, alguma coufa he que 
tem fer, doutra maneira nam podia andar. 
Snor Doutor Scmuel na brenha,ou,ia que nos 
canfa tanto,Snor dous tolos fern Semnel,nam 
he iio o que aqui diz: diz aqui que os homen s 

fana 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


207 


Dm tradicnes. iff 

ffttn como verno, que afloprou, epaftbu, e 
tquelle venro que paffou nam torna outra vez 
avoltar. Da mefma maneira que felon a Da- 
fid a mother induftriada de loab: Far <f$te mar• Sen. z, 
rende m o r r t ma s , e como agent dcrramadnj fobrt a eM P ,l +* 
terra fue nan fe afanhan. Affi que morremos, e 
turn rornamos a coaiharnos, como nam fe co- 
alham ago as derramadas, e como nam torna o 
ventd qne paflou; f a felfidade que tunos Ian* 

9as na dectara^arm deftevcdo, quc por fi rod* 
mo fe declare efla epora, e thi cm ti. Paflb a 
gra^a, ou dcfgra^a com quc tu declares o ver+ 
fo,c dizes,qne o efpirito nam tornafe por vir- 
tude propria * mas fe Dcos o mandar rornar 
por quc nam tornara ? que efta foltara, c ddi- 
cadeza nam at ho eu ja palavras com que po- 
dcr lotftarta. 

Segue mais no cap. 1 6. c diz, que fe Epicu- 
to tivera fei, c re9eocra que Deos avia criado 
o homem a fua imagem, de nenhuma maneira 
duvidara da immortalidade da alma , por quc 
nam era tam falto de juizo, e philofophia quc 
negafle a for^a dos argumentos que concluem 
em forma. 

De verdade que fe a maldade, e torpeza 
nao ^egara efte mao homem, elle nam podera 
eferever o que efereve com tam pouco peio,e 
Vergonha. Equem podera acharEpicuro que 
abonara feu juizo, e philofophia fe nao achaf- 
fe hum tal efpirito como efte. Por ^erto mui- 



208 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


X €>i*m 

ta rezara feve.qoem a Epicuro chamou, gado 
dos philofiophos, pella torpeza de feu juizo,e 
doutiiua^ciaquclle que o tal juizo abooa, ou- 
txo cal ga<k> com rezao fe chamar 4 ,e deshonra 
da vcrdadeira philoiophia. Epicuro pos o 
betn no deleitcfcnfual. O verdadeiro juizio, 
e phflofophia enfiua antes aporobe napaz, 
oa ian dc , e nos bens que a ajudam a confer, 
aarf deque fudo o deleitehe inimigo. Epicu- 
ebjiegouaver Deos, e dife que o mundo era 
hnmcorpoquenamteveprin^ipio, eafiico- 
«no agora fteJempre fora.O verdadeiro juizo, 
ephik>rophia.eniina,que pois nenhum viven- 
te-tere de fi virtude para ier, nem alguma das 
cottfas qtte icvem com os olbos tema talvir- 
tudede fatter criaturas, hefor^a queaia ou- 
tro po 3 er major, de quern ellas em prin^pio 
re<jet>*mro o £er, e a naefma virrude defe po- 
doretn cocfervar por aquella mefnaa ordem 
com quefnram criadas. E pois que nenhum 
xirente, nemo homem principal entre dies, 
e rational ceve defi virtude para fer ; muito 
mcdos a podia ter alguma outra coufa das que 
vemosinfenfiveis, e inanimadas, e afli para o 
fer de codas* he for^a de rezam matural, aver 
de re^orrer ahum prin^ipio, e fer, que para 
fer nam teve ne^emdade de ninguera,incom- 
prehenGvel a nos pella incapa^dade de nof- 
Jo ferfini to , que nam pode compcender o 
iniinito. E fendo ifto condufam natural tira- 

da 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


209 


Das Trddicces. * f f 

At por demooftra^tm clarflfiib®, que •SAspaa 
de nf gar o n*f~»o , e desatf&io , coma ibs 
©Efalmo: Difi o ntfcto em ftMurafAm, namhd 
Dt*s ; nam tern peio efte devhonra dos ptuio- 
fopbos em dtzcr. <pte nans'era Epicurd nan 
fatto de juizo,e phdofopthiagtpie ne gaffe a fon- 
9a do$ arguments. E de vendade ea nam fei o 
que efte tem metido na cabc^avpor que eq Uie 
onvj dizer prefemcs outras .peftws (talo- vera 
dade diante de Deos) que fonre a cria^atnidd 
mutido avia muito que fazer^e dizendo)hecn 
qui? tin ha ifoqac fazer?Se obomena fefiaera? 
rfcfpondeo queobomem nam era mundo. E 
tornjmdoarepeurlhe com fidva refeaimi res- 
wettofe a dizer, quando. Aft* que ao mends 
dife, que avia mqico que fazer Eobre, quan¬ 
do o muudo fora criado. Efte trifte le por A- 
iriftotcies , e Cbmo Ariftoteles affirmou feg» 
camcntc que o muudo fora de eterno,e ncgou 
^ cria^am , fazendo a gera^ara infinira, eque 
nam ouve primeito-homem j fendo manifeffo 
que he nc9effarioxon9eder hum primeiro, de 
quern fe continuaffe a gera^aojelle pare<ycqu* 
fe embaraijacora feu meftre , enam hemnico 
quefeembara^e, pois em-firatem tam bofli 
juizo que achou em Epicure jutzo. 

E^ercaoargumento.jadifemos que o bo-, 
mera nam he imagem, eiemelhanija de Deoi, 
comoo filho he imagem,e femelhan^adefen 
pui > eaffiem baldcfe canfe quern com efte 

motivo 



210 


■URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


ijS Ex ,c m 

motho dc fer chamado, imagem, quer nelle 
par a immortalidade que fe acba etn Deos. & 
& Yaleile o argumeoto para a immort alidade, 
t amb cm veleria para a fabedoria, para o po- 
der. E poil o homem fabeo que veraos,e po- 
de inda menos do qae fabe, mal reprefeota 
cllc aquclla imagem de Deos que o argumen- 
to quer oellc por. He pois o homem limitado 
uavida, no fabcr, no poder, e viveodo repre- 
fcnta imagem,e (emelhan^a de Deos na terra 
cm alguma cou(a. For ifo pofemos, quafi fe- 
mclhante, que cfte accufa, para moftrar que 
nam fehadetomara palavra no fentidopri- 
meirOjC forte. Lfto mefmo diz o plalmo quan- 
rfsl.t. do diz: £ jivjleo mingnor humponco dc Deos : e 
com gloria, t hour a o coroafte. fir.eslee dominar cm 
AS ovrxs de ttus moons, tttdo pafeije debts xo defeus 
fcs. Moftra era que feia o homem imagem de 
Gtm. Deos, que he era fer (nor na terra fobre todas 
i as obras dc Deos, c nam ter nella criatura al- 

cuma Ibbre fi, a quern reconhe^a ventaiem, e 
iuperioridade (t&mbera fobre as feras domi- 
narporarte) re^ebendo muitas deltas porfua 
coao o fufteto, e a comida. Outro fi alTem elha 
o homem a Deos, e reprefenta fuas vezes na 
admimftra^am dajufti^a, dondeos juizes fam 
ff. ix. moitas vezes chatnados.deofes : Deos eft ante cm 
compsnJoia de deos, entre os deofesjulgard. E cada 
particular em fua cala, e no governo de fua fa- 
railia affcmelha tambem a Deos. Affi muito 

temos 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


211 


Dm trtdkocu 143 

tcmosja cm que o homem fe parent a Deos,e 
jmice a Decs, c por confeguinte fe verifiquem 
as palavras daelcritura fem recorrcr a outros 
fonhos. E aqui he de notar a declaration que 
cfte dcu As palavras do verfo que diz oerar A’¬ 
dam 6 fua imagem, fua femelnanta, dizendo 
que ell as fe referem fomente i virtude, e nam 
4 compofitao; por que fendo que alii efta6 em 
fua propria forta,e o filho he verdadeira ima¬ 
gem de feu pai, elie as entcnde fd nafcirtude; 
e qua onde nao pode aver mais que huma imi- 
ta^am, e afTcmelhar a Deos em alguma confa, 
quer entendelas mui ao p€ da letra, e que a al¬ 
ma do homem tenba de tudo o que Deos tem, 
fendoque nemnocorpo, nem naalma heo 
homem femelhante a Deos j nem a efcritura 
diz ifo, ouapartouaalmado.corpo, enaal- 
ma pos efla femelhanqa, maso homem codo 
que conftadecorpo,e alma,ou por melhor,de 
corpo animado,dife que era femelhante a De- 
oS,e em que o feia temos ja moftrado.Porfim 
diz: A ca! he femelhante 4 neve, mas a cal nao 
he neve; afH o homem he femelhante a Deos, 
mas o homem nam he Deos. E com eftes def- 
varios vos refponde, e vos canfa. Se o homem 
nam he mais imagem de Deos do que a cal he 
imagem da neve, teflam os defvarios.Por que 
fe tu diferes: a cal he femelhante 4 neve: a ne¬ 
ve fe faz liquida com o fohlogo tambem a cal 
fe far 4 liquida com o fol: far 4 s os argumentos 

L que 



212 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


ttfo Emtm 

qpccofaunas.O hornem he femelhante a Db 
oaeDeosheinfinito: logo tambcm o bomem 
heinfintto. Em Era acabafte de dizer queo 
femelhante aviade ter de tudo o que tem a 
coufa deque he, femelhan^a, eporifo oho. 
mem era tor^a qne tiveffe de tuoo o que tioha 
Deosjentam eorao delacordado trazes exera- 
plods cal com a neve, que f6 na cor pode ter 
icmelhan^a, fendo cm tudo o mais de tarn di* 
fcrente fubftanf ia, e natureza. 


Otf. 1 4, Qm 4 « 6«4 d$ bmau mu tern 
mmc prtprit, qttc mu fej* co¬ 
rn** dde hr tat* 

N O cap.i7.poemocontrariocadeirade 
lingoa Hebraica,e declara que a alma do 
homem le chama, NeJfmAi> e a do bruto, 
Ncpbtt, c fe bem a do bomem be tambem al* 
gufflas.vezes cbamada, Nepba , tem ifo par* 
tictdar rezao, (pie a. feu tempo elle diri 
Comefbu maravilhas encubertas a feu pare* 
£cr, e agora enfioadas por elle, fala, cnami 
nomcs ♦ e fe fingc yentro da fabedoria. Po* 
fdm Ibe moftraremos que contra fi revoUeo 
elle efta agoa, que nos deixavamos quicta por 
Bam mover tanto lodo* 

A. palavra, Nejftmah , (ignifica, alento, 
aflbpro, efpirito» e ferve a toda a coufa viva 
que tem re/pira5am: E morreo toda a came &c. 

tvA» 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


213 


Dm tradi&Ss* t€t 


itdt $ f m dmt de effiritede vuU em femme* Qtmfi 
tines de ttde 0 qmemt feee wmrerdr. A pah- 7.114 
yra, Nepbes, ugnifica alma, corpo tnima- 
(io, e be nome comum a alma do homem com 
ados brutes* e todas as vezes que (equer no- 
tar, alma, feuiadellc. Rmub, fignifica, vcn- 
to, efpiriro. Eporquede todas eftas pala- 
ms u« a efcritora conform? ao que oner fig- 
nificar, com que noca oalento, a alma, o 
eipirito com que o homem me j inventaram 
os fonhadores que cada hum defies nomes 
fazia no bomem Duma nova alma, e dtferen- 
te. Aifi conftavao homem de tres almas, e 


tarn esfarrapadas, e apartadas huma da outra, 
que as fazem entrar, ao menos duas, em di- 
ferentes corpos, e nefte fentido cofitam hi£» 
todas de muitas gra^a. Confbrme a eftes fe- 
gredos diz agora efte que a alma do homem 
tambem algumas vezes (fempre dirds melhor) 
bechamada, Nepbes , mas a rezamdird a feu 
tempo. Eftd com as maons na ma$a, e deixa 
efte fegredo para defpois, por que a rezam 
que tern para dar,he das rezoens envergonha- 
das,queieemmascara6,eandaodenoite, e 
fe tieflem dluzdodia appare^eriao fuas ver¬ 
gon has. 

Profegue mate em leu enfino, de que tarn 
mal Ihe yai, e diz: efeuita, atenta, a prende. 
Tsifie de ti, que he o que roe qiieres en- 
finar? oam&besque eraeu de nove annos, 

L 2 quando 



214 


'URIEL DA COSTA: EXAMINATION 


x6* Examt 

qnando meu roeftre enfinou, e emrergonhoo 

cocntgo hum tarn alto do corpo coroo tu es? 

Hora dize que atento eftou,e pois affi roe rna- 

das aparelhar , coufas grande* tens para me 

dizer, apartadas, e elcondidas de mim. Du 

affi. 

Er* tanta a diferen^a entre o corpo corrupt 
tivel do horoem , e a NefTamah, ou alma im. 
mortal, e dtvina, que pare^e ex^edia todo o 
entendimento aver entre eflea dous eftremos 
uniam , a qua! por effe reipetto negavam os 
Piatonicos,como Aqua dito,e affi foi ne^efTa. 
rio que o texto no la moftraffe claramente di. 
zendo , como diz , que infpirou Deos no ho. 
roern Nejfamab immortal, e por natureza in- 
dependente do corpo , por cuio refpeito pa. 
re$e repugnava unirfe com elle , e exer^irat 
nelle ooras diferentes deentender, ediicur* 
far, e para nos tirar eiTa duvida diz, e foi pot 
alma viventernam diz, foi alma vivente,ou foi, 
Nepbei ha tab, que he a alma dos brutos fe nao, 
foi por alma, ou em lugar de alma, como di* 
zer : inda que a Nejfamab he de taro fubiime 
grao que feu officio proprio he encender, ifo 
nara Ihe tirou fazer ella tambem no corpo hu- 
roano o officio que faz a Nepbes nos brutos ,de 
vivificar ,de ientir.e movers tudo o mais,con- 
forme ao que diziaJiobcap* 3 / alientodel 

Dio me abivigti Ondevem a mefma palavra, 
Nejfamab. E com efta xerdadeira explica^am 

^cflara 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


215 


Dm trtUkdes . jtf} 

*dJim todas as voltas cm que anda eoofafo 
cftc^cgo &c. 

Dc verdade mi bcfta que ncnhama vergo- 
aift tens, e in da que muitas vexes to digaanuw 
tastnais tthe devido. faxes de raim louco.que 
comiocuras me queres fatisfazer, e para as 
euyir me mandat apprelhar, e eft as me man* 
disaprender? Outravex digo que nenhuma 
vcrgonha tet*5. Gaftei o tempo em efcrever a 
quedizias, eagora. gaftalohei emrefponder* 
te? Por^erco muito melhor fora deixarte fem 
nenhuma repofta, e pouco mais farei a refpei* 
to do muito que podera trazer fobre ti. Ja di* 
fomosque, Ncjfamah, nam fignifica ptopria- 
mente, alma, qilanto mais alma immorrai, e 
dmna^ masakmo, aiTopro,c afloj^Peom que 
ft a9ende lamb: ajfopro do Scmbor ctmo corrente 
dccnxofre qm tardianelU: onde 1c acha a mefma 3° • 
palavra que na cria^am do homem.E fc na cri- 
a^am do horaem nam difcra, Nejfemat chajim , 
aflbpro de vidas, a palavra, Nejfemat* por li fo 
nam importava mais do que imports dizer, 
aflbpro, e todos os aifopros nam fao aifopros 
de vida, como tambem todos os efpiritos nam 
ko efpiritos de vida, mas aquelles em que ha 
vida, e virtude animal. E aifi fe tnoftra quam 
defavergonhada falfidade feia dizer efte que, 
Neffamah , por fi f6, imports almaimnfortal,e 
divina. E que ella nam importe mais do que 
itnporta a palavra, Rtuch y hecoufafabida, e 

L 3 fcvc 



216 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


M'%7 


164. Sxtmc 

feveclarodoverfo: par que cm todoo tempo 
men tleuto cm mim, e 0 cfptrito de Deos cm mem 
nor is. Aonde troca as palavras pondo huma 
por outra,e diz que 00 naris tem Ruach,e nfto 
Ncjfemat, que Deosinfpirou no naris do bo- 
mem, afti que Nejftmttx Hutch,cHutch xNcjl 
femtt nam fao difcrcntes pm fubftan^ia, e di- 
zct efpirito, ou dizer affopro, alcnto, tudo 
heomefmo. Oque outrofi fe confirma de 
Jecbezchelcap. 37 . ondenam mandou De¬ 
os qae enrrafle nos roortos Ncjfamth , mas 
Hutch , e com Hutch fiquaram vivos , e ani- 
mados (figurativamente falamos comoolu- 
garhe.) E quanto o que efte diz dos Platonu 
cos> muito bem diziam em dizer que a alma 
nam po<9 unirfe com o corpo iendo buma 
fubftau^ia feparada, e independence delle f e 
os dua lhe querem iatisfazer, e refponder nao 
podera. 

Ultimamente fe confunde efte mao em di¬ 
zer que a Nejftmth, alma immortal, e divina 
faz no corpo humano o offifio que faz a Nt* 
fhes nos brutosjpor que fe o bomem foffe ani- 
mado de alma tal, era impoflivel morrer, por 
que em quanto ha alma nam morre a criatu- 
ra. e elle mefrao le encontta com o que tem 
ditorque da virtude feminal do homem re^ebe 
o gerado os graos de alma que tem os brutos: 
c affi a Ncjftmth, alma immortal nao faz o of- 
6910 que faz u Ntphfs pois ja o Nephcs o fazia 

antes 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


217 


Das trseUcois. i 6f 

antes dedlaeotrar, que he a alma que oge- 
w do tinha-ce^ebido de pai. Nem dtm^odi* 
t m fazer o mefrao officio, huma, mortal, ou- 
tra, immortal, coufas tad cootrarios. E quan- 
do ambas o podeflfem fazer, e huma dellas cn- 
firaque^efle, ahi fiquava a outra que nam eo- 
fraque^ia, e podia ter mam na cala , e do go- 
verno della, t eis aqui as patranbas qseavia- 
mos de efcuitar, e aprender, com que eftes 
folios, e maos mais do que fe pode dizer, eo- 
ganam os homens mininos fob re que mandao> 
edominao, e eis aqui em que nos detemos , e 
canfamos. Caniado vivas,e morras poistantd 
fem caula canfas. 

Diz mais que por amor da lei, e premio 
futuro largo Ifrael proveitos, goftos* qpietau 
9am, vlve trifte, e mifer&v&, medrofo, e def* 
tcuado. DefvChturado que (e nam conhe^e, 
nem fe ve, e inda cuida qu& em fiia mao po* 
de eftar pofluir aquillo que diz, luitando con-< 
tra Deos, e contra feu podec. Nem baftam os 
exemplos que tern aos olhos • e em que cada 
dia fe pode olhar dentro de fua propria cafa 
para eutender que os penfamentos do bo- 
mem lam nada , e o de Deos fe ba de fazer. 
£ fe ifto nam he afli, dirdmos que a lei nps 
conta gramas quando diz, que derramarA o 
povo nas terras, e mandara empos elle ef* 
da vingadora do con9erto quebrado. Mas 
que ella gramas nam conte, moftra bem 

L 4. oacon- 



218 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


% 44 Examt 

oacome<jimento > e efte meftno be boa tefte- 
m unha, pois nam baftou a elle,ncm a feus paf- 
iados, averfe defviado do caminho, e confor- 
narenfe com outra gence para alii akan^arera 
as bonras, e bens que diz, e poder fugir a ira 
divina. Antes emqualquer eftado, e lugar, he 
effca na^am conhe^ida no mupdo, e quiz Decs 
que fafkafll, para moftrar ao tnefmo mundo 
a verdade de fua lei, palavra, e unidade,vendo 
agora aconte^er ao pd da lctra coulas taoto de 
antespronun^iadas. 

Conforme a eftc feu bom juizo, e enten- 
dendo que na mao do homem efta gozar bern, 
dizomao, que melhor nos foraja levarboa 
vida, pois nam efperaramos nada da outra. 6 
torpe, 6 Epicuro verdadeiro j e a que chamas 
tu levar boa vida? largar o temor de Deos , e 
entregaraos vi^ios? vivermal, e acabar mal? 
Efeemtua mao efti levar boa yida , porque 
naoteGmpas da lepra que trazes is coftas? 
por que nam te curas ja que es medico.e andas 
disfor®e,e fem figura? Em fim,mao,de ti nao 
pode (air bom cooielho , pois tu o nam tens 
para ti, e mal me pode a mim tirar do inferno 
quern traz o inferno is coftas, e de tai maneira 
qi^eolhar para ti,he olhar para o mefmo infer¬ 
no; por que fe no inferno ha bichos, ha fedor, 
e comichao, fe ha pelle pegada no oflo, e ner¬ 
ves vazios de came, tuao ifto fe acha em ti, e 
vivendo padas aquillo que para os corpos de- 

fundos, 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


219 


D/u Tradicoeu t6/ 

fun&os, e infenfiveis eftd guardado* En> petto 
contrario,cuia vida em teus olhos paretje can^ 
fada,por eftar fora de tua compaobia : por ifa 
mefmo fou bem aventurado , por (pie naoen* 
tro ua coropanbia da tortuia, e da maneira 
que hoie vivo, me conferve o Snor que me 
criou, e aqu|m eu roe abrigo at£ o tneu derra* 
deiro dia. Olha fe me quero mal, e me queres 
fnda tirar do inferno em que vivo. Dai Comas 
quedfzes mehaDeos delpors de tomar, nao 
le te de muiro j nefta vida me apiade elle, co- 
roo faz,epagarcma otnra as cSTpas que ttfme 
poens.E tu tenhas neffa oinferno^conao t*n|, 
edefpois re^eberds o prernio dos bens quo 
nao ha emti. E por conclufa6 delenganate* 
que quando negros, e brancos.,CaFres, t Chi¬ 
nos, todos fem dfftm^ao voaflem para o ^eo, 
foo tu has qua de fiquar, e nao quero eu que 
vas ETfhurn dia hef die fer chaveiro dc^eo pov 
amor de ti.) Duas rezoens me diovem para 
querer affi : nua, que com o pezo dc tua mal* 
dade, trifteza, e carregamento ,£aird fem du- 
vida o ^eo abaixo, e fe fard outro chaos,como 
de antes ou«ra,que faltando tu da eerra,e fen* 
donellao Atlante que noshombrosfuftentas 
o mefmo 9C0 (indi^io grande, alem de que tu 
afli o dizes a cabefa que trazes efcondida nos 
peitos.que com a continua^ao do pezo fez 
lnclina^ao ) he for^a que fe figa o mefmo pe* 
rigo» c por confeguinte, que refpeitando a 

L j eftes 



220 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


tit SxOWU 

dbea grande* inconveniences tedrixe eupor 
qua liquor. O romtn^tflx com que dizes te ul- 
tqgo t « mo crazes em vergonha, effe te con- 
fandeati, eseenvergonha. He bum Poet a, 
•am trovadoc e fabia mats dormindo do que 
tufabes efpecto. Outras corpezas tuas paflo,e 
deixodc canfado. 

Cap*if. Ktff>»»de a vart 44 coupU doft* 
cap. it* tf. 2 o. 

N O cap. 1 1 . diz elle, que nam he argtime- 
to qae fe traga para provar immortalida- 
deyo que Mofeh dife a Deos: rifeamte dt uu li- 
vroqttetftnevoflc: E da hums dedar^am a ef- 
telugar, talcomo quem elle he> e aquelles de 
qurmatoaou. O arguments he argumento 
que {ecoftutpa trazer em muicas occauocns.fe 
elle o m 5 fabe,pergunte. Alguns entendendo 
que Mofeh falava do livro, em que imaginam 
wo dcritos os que hao de viver vida eteraa, 
refpondem que elle falou confiado , como o 
filho que roga a leu pai pello fervojmas o len- 
tido verdadeiro fiqua dado cm fen lugar. 

Segue mais, e diz, que le Mofeh nam tinha 
outro ientido, defpropofito grande era pedir 
a Deos a morte, que elle podia tomar por fuas 
maons; por^m nam o fez por nam perjudicar 
to mere^imento dos bens furnros. Homem 

que 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


221 


Vdstr/uUctSfs* t6f 

qoeifto diz, nam fe pode ^ontar por bomem, 
nem inda por befta; por que nun ha beffca quo 
namame o feu fer, e nam fuga com toda fua 
forca daquillo que lhe pode fer contrario* 

Am efte fe deve contar entre os foriofos, que 
fe Un^am na agoa, e no fogo,(era juizo, nem 
acordo. E eis aqui o bomem com quem ea 
tbibo nego^io • bomem que diz, <jue be de£» 
propofno pedir a Deos a morte, onde (e a-* 
cha© facas para degolar, craves, ecordaspa* 
racnfor^ar , e outros remedies femelhantea, 
com que cada bum pode tomat a morte pof 
(uasmaons. Em fim, furiofo bomem, jaqoi* 
zerater conduido contigo : Mo (eh nam gu«* 
ardava a tua regra, nem pedia a Deos a morte 
para que lha defie; primeiro queria vida que 
quizefle morte, nem fua alma aodava em pe«t 
na no feu corpo. Tutepodesenfor9ar, eli* 
vrar tua alma da pena. em queanda: os bona, 
eosfefudos 11am ufam do teu furiofo rctne- 
dio. 

Profegue mais, e condena a explica^am 
que demos ao verfo: freftofit em os olbos do Shot Tpdm 
o morte* feme bow. Onde difemos : nam efti- 11 ** 
nu o Snor tarn pouco a vida de feus bons que 
lbe nam fqa mui cara fua morte. E diz que o 
(ernido defte verfo he, que a morte dos oons 
be fuave, e eftimada do Snor, por que a elle 
he (uave recolhelos em fua gloria, e darlhes o 
premio defuas obras. A verdadcira explica^ao 



222 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Exome 

be sqaefla qae fiqua dada,e eotao declafaraos 
o verio, que alias na6 importaua muito a nof¬ 
ib propouto,ibo pox cncontrar a Falla quc ci¬ 
tes da6, e moftrar a verdadeira. mas o iuriola 
inda dura cm fua furia coftumada , c nao o ti* 
rara6 della ncra com muitos a^outes. David 
naqaeUc pfalmo na6 dava a Decs gra^aapor 
lbe aver ttrado 4 vida, mas davalhe gramas pel- 
lo aver efcapado di mortC, c diaia quc a mor¬ 
se dot bons he de muito pre£o , de muira va« 
Ua, c eftimaem os olhos do imor, na6 fuave* 
coooefte barbaro diz , nemtal fuavidadc ca* 
be na palarra, lachar 5 eas coufas que faode 
muita valia, chamamos nos cams, difficuho- 
(as de achar , como as conrrarias chamamos 
vis. ndfce fentido difemot que eftima o Snor 
a vida de leus bons, epor confeguinte lua 
tnortehecara,cdeaito preform feus olhos, 
veadea muito bem vendida, e nao a vende por 
qne«por denhum pre^o a dA: afti nao deixa ao 
mao podeftar fobre dies. No mcfmo fentido 
fida o rerfo fobre o Rci jufto quc acudiria aos 
ffm .72 pobres, e que pouco podiafi : do enfant, efobre 
firfo remit a [ha almA , e prefiofo fern feu fAttune 
em os olhos dell r. e da mefma mancira dife Da- 
■SflK.i. vid a Saul: £ us *fficomofoi engrodeffido tsto *l~ 
16 mA emodtA efleem mem olhos : nffi feio engross - 
defetda minho almo tm os olhos do Senhor, e me Is - 
vre de todo a anonfisa. alii que a declara^ao do 
torpe he furiota, como lao tod as luas coufasj 

eoraef- 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


223 


Dm trsduifs. xyx 

eot9cfiBoheaoutraqae<Uaofcrfb<fcIiob: 
Sefofifft 4 eUt ftutwacaZ, fim tfftrit*, efcMsltM*** 
4ilU*pd*hart*:dandt tira quo apaohaDeof 
dohomem algunw coqfa,que dcfooisde apa-* 
ahada tern fer, e a rccolhc junto de fi. O qsal 
lu^af fiqua atras declarado no cap. i*»ena4 
diz mais do quc diz o verfo : rtctUserJu fin tfi 
ifforarti : falando dos outros animaes* 
cuioefpirito Deos tarobem rccolhc , c nafi fit 
f«gu<?, que defpots dc rccolhidos eftcs efpiri* 
tos tenhao fer,mas chama recolhimcnto i ex* 
tin^ao, e efpira^a6,pclla qua! <je(Ta a yida,que 
doefpirito vital vinha aovivcote, o qual ei* 
pirito Deos nellc faz ^eflar. 

Vai por dianteofuriofonocap.ip.equci 
que feia vcrdade, que os monos refpondena a 
quern Ihes pergunra , nem admitte que pafiad 
fer enganos, e illufoens da arte malfeirwa, 
poisque a lei veda perguntarfclbe, comoquc 
fedevedar a pergunta fe iiga verdadeira re* 
pofta fua. E quem faz tao boas confequeiw 
as, tambem dir&queos deofes das genres 
fao verdadeiros deofes, enaflfoo fao deofes 
refpeito daquelles, que por taes os adorao* 
pois que a lei diz: moS ttrus dtofes alh&s didntt 
tUmtm. Sobre outros defrarios que traa aek 
tepropofito n.16 queremos canfar%e baftao 
que temos moftradopara fe ver , que os mor- 
tos nao fabem nada. 


Mais 



224 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


I f% Ex4Mt 

Mtis diz que Elifah fc eftendia fobre aquel- 
leminino que q&eria refuff itar para am lhe 
preparar, e efquentar os membros frios. P*- 
sefe que Elifan queria purgar efte mini no, e 
primeiroo enxaropava para lhe preparar os 
fiuntofes* Etambem o efquentava, porquc 
tomiquentura lhe aviade tornar a alma, 4 
maneira dos bichos,que com os trazer no (eo 
fegeram, evivem. O torpe medifina: coita- 
do do doence que a tuas preparafoens efperar 
de refuff itar. 

Allega no cap.io. paramoftrar queosbons 
nam udpremiados nefta vida, que Irmeiahu 
pro feta foi martirizado no Egypto, e outras 
a efte tom. Nam ferd muito que foffe affi, e 
tudo podia lair dos deffendentes daquelles, 
que contra o mefmo Deos, e feus fieis fervos, 
e miniftros fempre rebelarara,e contra os me- 
Km lhores tomaram pedras. Pordm a mini nam 
*£**"/*meconfta que foffe affi: antes mcconfta da 
profef ia do mefmo profeta, averlhe Deos da¬ 
do carta de feguro, e conforme a ella foi fern- 
preefcapado damorte, que muitasvezeslbe 
quizeram dar. Se defpois Deoslhequcbrou o 
feguro, caufa averia para ifo, elhe tinhadito 
que fe nam fizefle o que lhe mandava fazer, o 
trilharia 4 vifta do povo. Doutra maneira nam 
podia faltar fua palavra, que nunqua Deos fal* 
toucomellaa Abraham, Ifchac, ejahacob, 
nemanenhum bom* Tarabem di2 que }o- 

fiahu 



•URIEL DA COSTA: EXAMINATION 


225 


Dos 7 Tddie&f. TZJ 

fishn foi bom Rei, e toda via Borneo daieri* 
daqueouvenabatalha. E ouvera de lembrar- 
fc do que seferea mefraa hiftoria, qoe elks 
nam quizera ouvir so Rei do Egypto, que? 
de nome de Deoslbe dife, que nam avia oada 
com elle, nem era mandado contra eUe. Ejx 
Ihe cemos refpondido que os cammhos do 
Deos, c fcusjuizos fao juftos, poftoque obo- 
mem nam alcanfe o fegredo, e promado dd< 
les. Se ifto nam bafta, e nam quer obede^er 4 
lei, nem 4 verdade, que publica, epromete 
neftavtdaaosbons bens, eaos maos males, e 
cuida que Ifrad nam he mere^edor do cafHgo 
que leva, e em Em lhe pare^e que o mundo 
vai mal govern ado, fezendofe juiz das obras.e 
mere^imentos de cada bum, que nam conbe* 

^e, nam tem mats que negar outra vez a pro* 
viden^ia divina , como ja o tem feito muiras, 
imirando nifto o bom jnizo de ^egos, e defa- 
(ifados homens, e rnandar p6r a let de parte. 
Muitas coufas permite Deos, de que die GS 
fabe a caufa. Se a raim me quer perguntar a 
rezam das obrasde Deos, querezam lhepo- 
derei eu dar daquitlo que amira he encuber* 
to, pois Deos fe oao aconfelhou comigo?Ma- 
fe he a pomba.e a ovelha,e ve algumas vezes a 
cair na mam da ave de unha, e do lobo. Todas 
fam criaturas de Deos, de que elle he Sfior, e 
como diz o ver Commit Deos criouper amor defi» Prov\ 
Quiz Deos moftrar fua grandeza, fabedoria, l6 *i 

poder. 



226 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


TJ+ EX4M4 

poder, nefta vtriedadc de criaturas, quern Ihe 
perguntaripella jufti^a de fuaj obras?Li vein 
Lama eifita, e montaria, em que o lobo mui- 
ta$ rezes paga o fangue que bebeo da ovelha j 
eoandarelle embrenhado argue o temorde 
iiia coof^ien^ia que Ihe nao di fair a publico j 
como ao mao ihe nao di feu peccado con- 
e fua cdnf^en^ia o accufa,e atormen- 
ta, parte ia de feu caftigo. E Dad diga efte co- 
mo diz, que affi como n*6 podemos alcan^ar 
ocaminho de Deos no govemo das coufas, 
aflinaopoderdmos alcan^aro quefazcomo 
homem morto, ou tem para fazer, por que di- 
tA feus coftumados defpropofitos. l J odemos 
cntender aquilloque Deos nos manifeftou, e 
fez faber, e a mcfrna rezam alcan 9 a J c apalpa. 
mas o que he refervado a Deos,como he con- 
he^er oscoraijocns, e dar a cada hum confor- 
me ao mere^imento de fuas obras , ifo pode 
fazer Deos que fb o fabe , e para li guardou o 
iuizo. Ultirnamente queropergutitar a efte a 
quern rem por mais bemaventurado em fua 
forte?ahumcavaloque na frol de fuaidadc 
foi rnimofo , e fervido na cafa do prin^cpc, e 
na velbi^e dando em huma manqueira, foi 
vendido a hum carretad, que com a carga que 
Ihe punha As coftas , e rigor do pao com que 
Ihe dava, fazendoo andar fcm poder,lhc que- 
brava os dentes no chao : ou a bum jumento 
que cm fua faude, e por feus paflos contados 

fcrvio 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


227 


VastHutitcti, t7f 

fervio leropreafeu Amocarvoeiro, que com 
elle fc avia brandaroeftte? Por ^erte* iemque 
elle refponda, o jumentoibi mais bemaven- 
turado, c afli lam muitos no mundo; com que 
Ihe relpondemosa muitos ditos dos leui. >Ja6 
he bemaventurado o <$ue he mais rico, mas b 
que vivco, e acabou bem* 

Negamais, viGtarDecsopeccadodopai 
no filho* e paraprovaallega que mand^alei 
queofilhonamraorrapellopai. A ftegafatn 
he falfa, e a prova dcfpropofitada. Deos labe 
comohadevilitaro peccado do pai no filho 
fern fezer injufti^a, mas qua no loro judicial 
humano,nuoqua podia ler juftif a,mataro filho 
judifialmenre pello crime que feu pai come- 
teo, e alfi os terroos lam dilerentts.Deos nao 
mandou a Kain que marafle a Hevel, masfo- 
mcnte nam lhe atou as maons, nedefvioupor 
favor particular a morte. Moftre cfte agora 
que fez Deos injufti^a em nam acudir, e que 
nam podia ter caufas para debar alH fazer. A 
David amcafou por caftigo de leu peccado 
que levantaria em fua cafa hum mao: aiga que 
iffo narnlie viGtar o peccado do pai no filho; 
eem fim defdiga o que omefino Deos diz. 
Nemqueremos gaftar mais tempo era refpon- 
der a tantos ditos no ar de quem nam labe ftor 
onde vai, e em tudo foge daverdade, c dircito 
caminho. 


M 



228 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


t?4 Ex a m 

C*f. id. Mcilrd titrUs trr$s bcmrtm 
mc*f, Zi.22,**3. 

D EcUradle no cap. 21. o verfo do pfal- 
mo: fiuymfitkcr ekmdmbc de t iUti ediz 

3 uc falava David dajomada que fariadefpoi* 
e inorto, c que Deos ihe moftraria o cami- 
nho , poronde aviadefubir aos^eos, eviri 
companhiadosanios doSnor. Edeverdade 
diz muko bcm: porque fendo aquellc cami- 
oho tam pouco ulado, e nam avendo nelle ef- 
trada de carro conhef ida para fcguir, o pobre 
do inorto fe acharia embara^ado, e feria ne- 
feAriq tomalo pella mad, e a moftrarlbe pot 
ondeavia de anditr, feafli baftafle, eellenan 
difefleque era a cofta alta, e nam fe atrevit 
atantofiib'r. 

*9.36 Segue no cap. 22. c quer que os mottos de 
que & Jecbezchel, na realidade viveram, e 
cm canto, que diz Robi Jofeph Galileo, que 
aqueUes mortos fubiram a terra de lfrael,e ca« 
faram, e tiveram filhos, efilhas. Queiftodi- 
ga efte Galileo, ha pouco que eftranKar, e em 
o contar efta befta na ioda mcnos, nero podia 
fer outra coufa pois que o Galileo o diz. At* 
gumentaelleauefeaffi nam fora, eaquelles 
mortos verdadeirameote nam viveram, feria 
falfo o exemplado poiso era o exemplo.E nad 
vcotorpe.que aquillofoi humavifam, eque 

em 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


229 


DMtrddicMt. 1 77 


cm vifam vio o Profetatoda aqarik figure, « 
otm com os oibos que tioba na teftaj porque 
com dies nam vio campo cheo de oflqs,e me* 
nos os vio juntarfe hnos com os outroV 
Declare ootro fi o verfb de Jefabiahur Afar* 
ttt tuiviviri* : dtfta&os muft UvMttiuriS : poropaf. 
toda* as gcntcs, e povos da terra,e die que et 
ces defpois qae noonrem acabam para £rmpre> 
e debaixo da terra fe fiquapun, fern defies aver 
mais memoria, mas aoutravida, ere&rrei- 
9am f6 fiqua para IfraeLe qoe no verfoha poo* 
co qae dedarar.E de verdade queqoando ou- 
traprovanam oavera contra as falfidades, e 
foDoos defies malinos ^egos, qae feus mef* 
mosdttos, elles f6 baftavam para fuaconfa- 
fam. No prioppio quiz efie provar a immor- 
talidade da alma, por parte do entendimen- 
to,e por parte da vontaae,como elle diz.To- 
da a alma, pois, em qae (e achar efte entendi- 
menro, evontade, he ne^efiario qae ieja im¬ 
mortal. Em roda a alma rational le acnaen- 
teodimento, e vontade: logo toda a alma ra¬ 
tional he ne^eflario qae fcja immortal. Em 
nm nara fecUna alma huraana diferenca fubf- 


tan^ial: as almas de todos os povos ,e na^oeos 
por boca defies morrem, e acabam, omefmo 
oe ne^eflario qae confeflem nas faas almas ta- 
bem. Adedara^am do verio he a que fiqua- 
<kda; e Deos nam far& fim com todas as geo- 
tes, comoefie ^egamente diz, allegandoo 

M z verfo: 



230 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


178 Exame 

jti,' Tcrfb: com tuUsds Rentes ftreictnfitmMCdu. No 
* 6 .* 7 . quallugar di» Deos que na6 fard coniuma^am 
com I fuel, cm tanto, que fe fe dcffe cafo que 
ouvefle*de fazer confuma^ao com todas as 
gebtes, com tudo a cam faria com elle. B be 
eftemododefalar mui frequentado na efcri- 
tura. Affi que a declara^am be furiofa,e cega. 

Pro&gue mais, e fobre o lugar de Jiob: en 
Cep.x9 coftbep men remitter vivo , c dcrntdcirt fobrc e pi 
eft or a. Refpondequenamquerprovar delle 
feu intento, fendo o principal que fe coftuma 
trazer na fala dianteira para a relurreifad. Mas 
aqui torna a por cadeira de Hebraico* dizque 
alii fc fala em ter^eira pefoa, eft a ri, e nao em 
primeira, eftarei, e quie nos enganamos com a 
Tspib verfam Latina. No que mente, porque as me- 
m ' Ihores'Larinas poferamem ter^rira, comoo 

lugar fhJa, e nam em primeira. Enosemter- 
$eira tinbamos pofto, antes que em primeira, 
eindanamefhva tornado aliento. Mas co- 
mo na verdade do fenrido tudo vinha a fer 
humacoufa, e tanto roontava dizer, efterei, 
como, eft at a mi mb a cat tie; por rooftrar aos que 
punham em primeira, que nada ifo os ajudava, 
e por que a lingoagem fiquava mais corrente 
para os menos entendidos, eftavamos duvi- 
dofos fobre o querer deixar fiquar em primri- 
ra. AfC efte trifte, e manco meftre Hcbraico 
ouvera dedefenganarfe, e cuidar que nos na6 
pode contar hiftorias deN(JfAm<tb,Q de Nepbcs, 

eque 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


231 


Das Tradicocs. 179 

c que fabemos bufcar,c achar o que nos be ne* 
^cfTario acbar. 

Tambemdiz, porque nos nam conforma- 
mos com alguma expob^am Latina errada, e 
declaramos a palavra.derradeiro, pello denu¬ 
de iro.e fira da infirmidade^e trabalbo dc Iiob, 
que da qui fc moftrava que a oinguem pcrdo- 
avamos, ou refpeitavamos. dito, por serto, 
que nad pode fair falvo de hum mao, iuimigo 
de Deos como efte, pois d£ em culpa nad rel- 
peitar ao mundo para deixar de dizer aquillo 
que a verdade diz.'E fendo que a lei mlda que 
ao ado dejulgar nam fe refebam fa^es, efte 
perverfo accuTa de em materia de lei, e ycrda- 
de divina, nam fe refpeicar aos homens^ e ca- 
aainhar caminho direito. Nem fe pode trazer 
exeplo com que mais expreffamece fe debuxe 
e retrace a $ega maldade defies cora^oes dana- 
dos.cora^oes de biboras,e ferperes.e como os 
pinta o Propheta > rebddes,rcfradarios.efpin- itcbu 2 
oofos,efcorpioes,que p6r diante aos olhos do 
mefrao mundo com que efte fe quer acreditar 
a perverfidade de fua accufapao. Diante de que 
me accufas .mao? Accufafme por ventura dian¬ 
te do Cbriftao,e accufafme de me nao confor- 
fflarco a fua dcclarapao? pois o mefmo Chrif. 
tad te refponde, que fendo eu Judeu, nam fou 
obrigado a conformarme com ellej e fomente 
lhe cabe moftrar que eu dedaro mal,fe ifto po 
der moftrar. Em fim que eu nao tenho lipenpa 

M 3 para 



232 


•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


x8o Sh tm i 

pammeapartardo Cbriftam declarundo bcm 
(e he de notar que eftc mcfiDQ lugar quten. 
dem rauitos Chriftaona da mantira que euo 
dedato*) E f6tu es privilcgiado parao poder 
fixer dizendolocuras ? firulmcnte dizesque 
oderradeiro, deque Jiobfalava, heo mef- 
mo Deot, que le cnama, derradciro, e que el- 
le ielevaotaria fobre op6, queheohomem. 
defrario que nada ata com o lugar , oem lbe 
veo a Jiob ao peofameoto declarer que Deos 
fikvantariapaiatjulgaromundo, ealingoa- 
gem vai fegmda feropre no mefmo fentido, 
que fua pCUc, efeu corpo trilhado, edorido 
eftaria in da fibre ,a terra jnam eftaria Deos fi¬ 
bre o homem, que eftc falfo finbador quer a- 
qui encoder por p6,.como que fi debaixo da 
palavra, p6, feeotenda, bomem, e por, derra- 
deiro, fe entenda,Deo$: 

Vamos a moftrar feu ultimo deiirio, era 
quanto diz, que a palavra, dcrradeiro^quando 
it pam junta com os pronomes, meu teu, feu 
(trifte, e defVenturado grammatico ) he for- 
cado que feia hum ultimo que nao tern outro 
defioudefi.E com ifto rem armado para nos 
enfinar , e diz que alcan^amos pouco das lin- 
eoas, e da grammatical Mofioo aventoreiro 
fie eftc, e ouvera de deixar o officio a outros 
cavaleiros mais bem afirtunados que elle, 
por que outra coufa nao vemos nas fias aven- 
turas que mover, e levantar aruidos, e fiquar 

feropre 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


233 


Ddi tf 4 dic 9 is. 1 1 * 

fernprecom a cabepaquebrada. Nam bene* 
pefiarioparafer* derradeiro, que kja ultimo 
dpoisdoqualnam ba outro : Mas aquillo 
que fegue empos o que foi primeiro, lfofe 
chama, derradeiro, cm ordem do que foipri* 
meiro. Aifiodia de amanham, bederradci* 
ro, em ordem do dia de boie que foi primei¬ 
ro. jiiuKtuiws (dife Jabacob a feus nlhos)# Cm r 
fitrtofiber 4 vos o quo vos ba de tcomefer em o tier* 4* 
roderrodos dies. Nad quer dizer em bum dia 
ultimo detodos os dias, empos oqual nam a- 
veri outro dia, mas quer dizer, nos dias (e* 
guiotes que viram empos eftes dias, e affi fam 
derradeiros em ordem defies que pre^ederao. 

N*oencnbriremos de fern fitbos 4 gerafoo dcrrs- ?f. 71. 
deiro & . E outra fez: q*c combe ft 4 germ- 4** <• 

fa* derradeiro, os filbos 4*0 naffer do: Levantstr- 
[chasm, e conmrdo 4 fernfilbos. De modo que be 
derradeiro, nam f6 aquillo que nam tern ulti¬ 
mo empos fi, mas aquillo que fe fegue ao que 
foi primeiro,fe chama bem, derradeiro. Age- 
rafam que viet empos nos he derradeira em 
nafla ordem* que pre^edemos a ella, indaque 
empos ella fe ugua, como fegue, outra, e ou¬ 
tra. Adi que o nofio arentureiro fernpre fiqua 
finalado das baftalbas que comete. 



234 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


s8i r • fam 

Cap.t7 . SebreelivreJe Daniel, eeenfij 4 
eftcpropfito. 

R £fpondendo ellenocap.23.toque difc. 

mos fobrc a verdade do livro goo fe inti, 
tula de Daniel, nara faz caio de queet Saddu. 
geqs o na6 regebad,ediz qua forao buns arre- 
negados, hereges, que codes os dias fad amal. 
c%oadot nafua'£^ag*6r Outra-coofa nam ve- 
raos no aaopdoi^raqucsilcsimaitos, qoe mais 
•ata&rfTes fao os que chama© errados aos me- 
nos que mats agcrtad. Afp faz eftebando Pha. 
rifcu,cheo de bngimento,c fa)fidade,chainan. 
do arrenegado*, c hereges aos que mais perto 
vam dc age rear. Se os Saddugeus me regem cf- 
tes nomes por arrenegarem das tradigoes fal- 
fa>,e muitas mentiras, que no talmud eftao ef- 
critas, moitos fomos os arrenegados. Mas fe 
antes com verdade fe devc chamar arrenega- 
dos,e hereges, aquellcs, que rejeitando adou- 
trina.e verdade da lei, inftituiraro, e commen- 
taram novas lcis, efalfidadcs : OsPharifcus 
Andos, c apartados do vulgo, como efte diz, 
em quern cfA virtude fe acha.fam os verdadei. 
ros arregenados, hereges. amaldigoados.E que 
ellcso lcjao , c por feu refpeitovcoodeftcr- 
ro ao poro, c todos os males, fc raoftra claroj 
porqye dies foram osquetiveram fcmpre o 
governo na fegunda cafa,c por fuas lcis fc jul- 

gflva, 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


235 


DdStntficHS, <S| 

ca njt gorernava o cotxmm.E af&4 ellesjepor 
cietveoamaldifamda lei, e debaizo defta 
maldi^aoeftam boie dies, e os menos.por ref- 
peico delict. Arrencgemos,logoJivremece,de 
horoons tad arrcncgados, hereges, c mail nos, 
quc fendo a caufa da maldfeam cm que vivem, 
ic eftendem a maldizer aos que menos a me* * 
rc^iam, c mais fe apegaram com a lei. E nara 
entenda algucm que defendemos os Saddo* 
ecus, e codas luas coufas, por que de todas el- 
las namcemos perfeita noti^ia, e antes dea 
ter oam podemos fer juizes deltas. Mas pella 
comum ndti^ia que fc tem, claro eftd que el- 
les a^ertam em linear de fi os vaons commen- 
tos Pharifeus, que a lei desfazem .eemre- 
provaras falfas eferituras inyentadas para os 
ajudar, de que tinham perfeita, e^ertafabc- 
doria, comoaqudlesque eramtantode ca* 
fa, e podiam dar fe daquillo que nella fe fa- 
da. 

E tomando inda i maldade defies malditos 
amaldfeoantcs, nam podera eu crer que tam 
grande era, tam encarnfeada, e de tanta dura, 
1c por expericn^ia o nam provara. Affi, lendo 
aatigamente as hiftorias de Jofepho,nam 9cf- 
fava dc pafmarme, quando lhe ouvia contar 
as matangas, e carnigaria, os bandos, odi- 
os. perturbagara que acontegeram naquclla 
trtfie Rcpublica, ualgidq tudo defta maldade 
Pharifea. por que a quern nam provocardm as 

M ; atre- 



236 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


it 4 . Exmm 

•tfctklas, ddarergonhadas, e malditas lingo* 
asdedes&fados, c maos homens, e a quem 
sum inquietaram fuas obras. por mais foirido, 
e patience quc fe ia, para que tudo fe nao con- 
Terta cm rios de fangue? Cm Cm cam duros 
lam, que nemo longo defterro, peregrinaf ao 
pclloslares albeos, males infinirosaconte^i- 
dos ncllcs,hifbram nunqna, ou poderan) ball 
tar, para configo mefino feunirem, e acorda- 
rem, c deixarcm de fe fazer mal buns aos ou- 
tros. Pare$emequehe berao£a,que berdaram 
daqodles antigos irmaons lobos, que efquefi- 
dosdetoda a numanidade fe deliberavam a 
contaminate, e mancharfe no iangue da pia- 
dola, innofente, e mania ovelha, que vinna a 
bufealos, ddguerrada pellos monies, f 6 por 
fiber de lira faude. Falfo Pbarifen, falfo accu- 
fidor, fallo malUm,fe be pouco o fangue der* 
ramado, defeias que fe derrame mats, e do 
men tens inda fede, aprazate comigo, c?a- 
monos matarao campo com quitafoens da- 
das para que ninguem vinge nofla morte, mas 
nam aodes como cachorro covarde, ebaixo, 
lad r ando pellas ruas entre a gente: entam me 
acbards mais preftes nas maons do que me 
prorasnalingoa. 

Toraemonos ao nolTo atentureiro, e diz 
elle, que os fetenta interpretes alumiados por 
efpiritD divino (mentes, que ja nelle tempo 
cam avia efpirito divino^ eram Pbarifcos co¬ 
mo 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Dm Trddiaics. itf 

mo os mais) fizcram nos 24. livros, que diet 
hoje tem, e confeflam, as mudan^as, e spot* 
tamentos que acbaram que coovinha: eafli 
fern que feja ne^eflaria mais proTt fe ?er4 quc 
eftes faro. Ou os 24 livros, que dizds proK^ 
fais, erao verdadeiros, e bem efcritos,ou nao. 
Sc cram verdadeiros, e bem efcritos,os fcteo- 
ta interpretes , que mudaram a efcritura ver- 
dadcira,ebemefcrita, foram falfos, emaoc 
efcritores. Se nam eram verdadeiros, e bem 
efcritos, ja confeflais tempo, em que tiveftcs, 
e rc^ebeftes livros nam verdadeiros, c mal e£> 
critos , que tivcram ne^eflidade de fer emen- 
dados, e reformados. E eis aqui o credito que 
mere^em os livros que (6 por vos forem re$c- 
bidos, fe em fua approva^am nam tiverem ou- 
tro teftemunho mais verdadeiro que o voflo. 
Fiquafe pois feguindo ne^eflariaroente, que 
aquelles livros, ou parte delles, qua os Saddu- 
^eus antigos nunqua re^eberam.fam livros fb- 
mente Pharifeus, aos quais fe nam deve cre¬ 
dito, nem re^e£)imento. 

Mais diz: que inconveniente fe acha em fer 
a refurrei^am particular de alguns,como con- 
tem efte livro chamado,de Daniel; e para que 
ha de refuf^itar a turba multadas eentes, que 
nam fizeram bem,nem mal a lfraei,e por ven- 
tura o nam conhe^eram, e nam battarA que 
refuf^item os tyrannos, perfeguidores, inqui- 
fidores, que o aiTolaram, perreguem,c mataoj 



238 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


\t6 Exdnu 

o* quais tomando corpo par algara efpa^o.le- 
jao infamados, afrontados, e vituperados? £ 
de verdade que todos os fonhos deftcs, e feus 
defvarios, fam dignos de rifo, e de paflar com 
dies o tempo. Todos os que quizerem ler 
prophetas, conforme efta fua regra o podcm 
Ict, e dizer que quern lhes fizer mal, ha de fer 
pellado em huma caldeira, e ferver nella roui- 
to de vagar.Parc^e que no mundo nam ha ou- 
tros peccados, que fejam peccados, falvo os 
que lecometem contra Ifraelj e no de mais.as 
gentes, que o nam offenderem, tenham mui- 
tos peccados, c comao camedeoutragentc, 
nam tem para que reful^itar. Ogentc fabulo- 
fa, £ega, e mileravel, nam te queixes Jos ty- 
rannos do mundo, nem te queixes dos inquifi- 
dores. Queixatc de ti mefmo,que queres paf. 
far, e queBrar o concerto que fizefte com De- 
os, e nam queres que eile mande contra ti ty- 
rannos, e inquifidores. Pois fabe que quando 
faltaflem effes , nam faltariam ferpentes para 
te morder, alii coroo morderam a teus pais no 
deferto, Os tyrannos do mundo, e os inquifi¬ 
dorcs, Deos os julga nelle conforme mcre^e, 
e fabe como os hadejulgar, etu nenhuma 
coufa fabes. Efles de quern tu te qucixas,dc ti 
mefmo aprendcram,e com elles te paga Deos 
o enfino que lahio de ti. O de mais deftes teus 
reliii^itados, e encorporados por $erto efpa- 
90 dc tempo, por que afli eftava em rezao,co- 

mo 



•URIEL DA COSTA: EXAMINATION 


239 


Dm trddicoes. i87 

mo tu dfees, ifo mcfmo deicobre tuas fern re- 
zoeos, e tuas locuras. Tornate a Deos como 
hasde tornar, e levantard de ti as ferpentes, 
que te mordem,os tyrannos,e os inquilidores. 
£ pois nam baftou o que re dife iobre efte li* 
vro que chamas de Daniel (cada dia fazes li- 
vros, e lhes das os authores que tu queres, e 
poucosdiasha que emmeus dias querias fa- 
zer hum milagre iobre hum minino propbeta> 
que pare£e tala Deos agora com mininos) ie- 
rb ne^eiTario diaerte inda mais. £ ja que que* 
res, digo que nam tens vergonha de mendf 
mentiras tarn torpes, e daras, pois efcreves 
nolle, que Nebuchad nezar andou entre as 
beftas comendo erva, e converfando fete ap* 
nos,falto de rezao humana(pare9e que a Nei- 
iamab ie foi a paifear, e delpois tornou a ap- 
pare^er) no cabo dos quais foi de novo refti* 
tuido ao reino, e cftado que de antes tinba* E 
ja que efte coitado nam perdeo a figura huma- 
na andando entre as beftas, lbe poderas dar 
hum lugar na fua eftrevaria entre os ieus cava* 
los, e nam polo de dia, e de noite ao ar, apa- 
nhando com a boca a erva que avia de comer. 
Bfta, e outras ie acbam naquelle livro cheo de 
teus commentos, e vaidades, e nunqua 9eflag 
de contar huma hiftoria, ordir, e te^er hum* 
fabula, endere^ada, e encaminhada para cons 
ella firraar, e fortificar algum teu vam propo* 
Cto,c penfamento.Nam he menos fabulofo 0 

que 



240 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


£x*au 

qoe cfcrcves no livro quc chamas, de Efther, 
queo Rei deu li^en^a aosJudeus paraaxida- 
rem matando gente pellas ^idades,c pellas ru- 
as com outras a efte tom. Deixafonbos, im- 
pio, e mao commentador, e os que quizerern 
laber terdades, nam as perguntem a ti: outra 
fence mais limpa bufcem donde mclhores a- 
goos bebam. 

De catnioho queremos notar, que os Sad- 
do^eosefpalhados hoje por muitas partes do 
mundo, nunqua conhe^eram que confa era 
inqtiifi^ab, ncra feus rigores, argumento $er- 
to de que natn foram , nem famculpados nas 
culpas doc Pharifeus, 4 s quais correiponde fe- 
ttta caftigados por homens, que as efcrituras 
tor^em, arraftam, e mudam. 

Efque^iartos refponder a huma grande ac- 
cufa^am qucfaz o nofTo accufador, e diz quc 
hefalfb, comroenti^io,© que difemos ^erca a 
fua doutrina fobre o levatitamento dos mor- 
tos no tempo que vier o Mafliah , por que no 
tempo do Mafnab nam fe efpera o dito levan- 
tamento, mas he coufa feparada ; e por con- 
dafim diz que ha de aconre^er no fim dos di¬ 
es do mundo. E affi nunqua ha de aconte^er, 
poisosdias do mundo nunqua hao deter fim. 
Cuida efte falfo que as fuas coufas eftam mui 
cfcondidas , e nam fabe que andam eferitas, 
e publicas pellas pranas, quando da ja as nam 
feuberamos« E para que melhor fe veja quera 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


241 


DMtrdUcHs, rSfr 

lie, elle mefmo no cap. ai. declare odo o ver- 
fode Jefahiahu, vivtrmmtemtmrtos , efcreve, 
qae no tempo dt falva^am de Ifrael reiufcitarl 
oSnoros monos, defpois que remiropovo 
dos cativeiros. J a loco o Icvantamento dot 
monos be com a vinda do Mailiah, e fegoe a 
ella, e nam he no fim dos dias do mondo, on o 
muadofeha de acabar coma?inda doMaf- 
bah. Em fim efte fe encontra a cada momen- 
to,e nam tern firmeza cm coufa qae diga.Not 
deixaroos de contar as fuaa hiftorias:alargeza 
das vidas: o genero de mone que ham de tor- 
naramorrer eftes refufyirados, e eftado do 
mundodefpois da>inda do Maffiah , porque 
nam queremos contar hiftorias, que fam aflaz 
muitas por roais que efte nefte pafTo nos dig* 
que cm coufas tam occultas nam fe meteram 
os fabios , injuria grave feita agora a homens 
tam divinos, que com fua alta elpecula^ao pe- 
netraram o efcondido, e efla era a fua gloria, 
que clle por cfta vez lhes rouba, e nega. 

Cap. 1t. Sobre o cfttScUz. ferca d tranfpmgrafam 
da* alma* , eft he obrtgafao entregar a vtdd 
do tor memo por mao idoUrrar. 

N O feu capirulo24. dizo torpe lobre a 
t realm igra^ad das almas de huns corpos 
era outros que os feus enfinam, que efta era 
huooa das coufas okas, e foberanas, que o» 

fandos 



242 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


190 E x m mt 

£u)&os £biosvtroeas(jaaquilhes torna a ref- 
fituir fius ex^ellen^ias, e lbes concede a iqda- 
ga^am de couiasfecretas, c occuJtas^ c£con- 
diam entre outras, e queriara foilem iomente 
tratadas entre fertos, capazesde as re^ebcfjc 
entender. E nam bafta jerem eftes taes« que 
ddles (airao couias tarn defat inadas, Barbaras, 
^ggntilicas* mas inda (e deforergonhe a que- 
rer metela* entre as altas, e foberanas, ou ilar- 
Ibes efte nome;fendo vcrdade,qnc toda a dou- 
trina qae feefconde, e tem rergonha de fairs 
hiZj nam pode ier boa doutrinaj como tam- 
bem o nam pode ier a outra temeraria,que diz 
(U naodos, e camiphos para coohe^eM eflen- 
(iadmna«couiatotalmenre apartada, equo 
canto ex^ede o entendimento humano, donde 
irem dizerem muitos defatinos, e eftranhezas, 
que como taes nam ottzam appare^er, e fora 
melbor que nunqua appare^eflem.Neftc capi- 
pdo he de notaro termo da lingoagem defta 
alma tranfmigrada, quetudo traz is coftas, e 
nam contente de fer iigame do ^eo com a ter¬ 
ra, e fiiftentalo nos hombros, diz que tambetn 
queria iuftcntar efta parede esboroada das al¬ 
mas, que os neifios rompcrara, e devafaram, 
porquenam acabaile decair. Eifto.por lbe 
tocar na alma ver trazer nas maons a ignoran- 
tescoufas tamdivinas. Certo que eu nam vi 
bcfta tarn atarracada, tarn torpe, tarn ensabi- 
da>tam pezada da cabe9a,e com ier tal fe con- 

ta por 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


243 


Dm trddtcoes . 191 

ta por fabio, e diz que di confclhos como fa- 
bio. Ficjuate alroa tranfmigrada com astuas 
tranfmigra^oens beftiaes, mas nacn digas quc 
digo cu quc tua alma le ha de meter em huma 
vaca para fecmendar, que tttdo torses , e en- 
tendes cof&O qtfen es. Na vaca ha de ler me- 
tida por peniten^ia. A emenda he nos corpos 
humanos. Nem foau g r ?nd p cafo de que teus 
fabios digam que por efte refpeito fe degale a 
Vida com piedade. ( 3 malefteve em meter a 
alma na vaca : que defpois de metida ella, or- 
denar que afaca folTc aguda, era bom, econ- 
venieute. Os mais fegredos do degolar que 
encases,£tbuvtfX (por ^erto grande fegredo 
'frencen# em cortar as guelas a hum boi) dei- 
xo toaos para ti,que efta he a fabedoria que te 
convem.E fobre o que dizes,que as almas vem 
ao mundo a feu pezar , a feu ptzar fe tornam 
delle (nefte pezar do mejo falas mais a propo- 
fitoj e a leu pezar darAo conta a Deos ae fi, te 
acho muita rezam , eporifoatuaalma, toda 
he alma.de.pezares: pezares pdf dentro,peza- 
rcs potioouc todo es o mefmo pezar. 

Pois me falafte era hum confelho, que me 
davas (11am me lembra do teu confelho , nem 
cu fiz algum dia de ti confelheiro, ou a mate¬ 
ria fobre que dizes aconfelhafte, tinha ne^eC- 
fidade de confelho) te direi eu agora quam di- 
ferente era o que eu dava i tua companhia no 
tempo que ella quiz ufar comigo fuas exco- 

N munhoens. 



244 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


194, Examt 

nsunhoens, ou fuas maldades. Entam Ihc dife 
queie deixafle daqueUe cftilo,por qae por tars 
mejos nam ganharia nada. que feo qae eudi- 
zia ibe era pezado, econtrario, o dcixaife fi- 
quar, ieguifle embora feu carainho, c a mim 
me deixajffe no men, c fe neftas,material nam 
quizeflc falar, nam impedtffe a fala comum, e 
serai entre os bomens. Efte te digo euque era 
Domconfelhoj mas a tua mi caterva, e parti- 
cularmente aquella que a ti he mais cbcgada, 
e com falio zdo cnganava mini nos, lcyada de 
odio, e de Teas falfos refpeitos, calcou por tu- 
do, e pare^eolhe qae eram palavras. Nam fa> 
bia a tua m4 caterra que nam fei eu defdizer 
verdades, nem me criei com a mentira na bo- 
ca. N*m vifto dons panos, e ou hei de ter lei.e 
ouardala,ou (p a nam hei de guardar,nam a hei 
de ter. 

Segue no cap. z;. e diz que a terra fanda 
perdoa os peccados do poyo, e por ifo procu- 
ravam os bons nella- feus enterros ( amatiham 
fori da terra reliquias, e a mandari beijar, e 
trazer dopefcofb:) para prova allega a parte 
Den*, do verlo: e pcrdoara a fua terra , feu povo : di- 
3 M3* zendo fer coufa por die mui dara. Mas (e 
hedaroo folque o verfotal nam diz, nem 
podia dizer, e vem falando do Shor, que por 
am fe apiadari da atfo^am da terra,e do po- 
vo, quern averd que com gente defta force 
qucira lidar, e nam efcolba antes dcixala para 

podcr 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


245 


Das tradicocs, 193 

poder defcanfar, e viver? 

No mcfmo cap. quer fuftenftar que lam pi- 
adofos , e bons os officios, e rogativas feicas 
pellos mortos,e para ifto traz huma legiam de 
defpropofitos.e parvoi^es^eru que nao he bem 
gaftar tempo.O morto he immundo diante de 
Deos, e oiacrifi^io, ou oflertafeita porelle,a- 
bominavel. podera moftrar efta verdade mani- 
fefta, e notoria por muitos lugares da lei, e efc 
critura,mas como dito tebo,quero poupar meu 
trabalho com efta gente. Nao mandou Abra¬ 
ham,He hac,Jah acob, ne algum bom,quede£- 
pois de fua morte fe offere^efle a Deos algum 
carneirQ, ou fe lhe fizefle alguma ora9ara por 
fuas almas. A primeira vez que lemos efta in- 
ven^aojhe nahiftoria dos Machabeus,tempo, 
cm quq reinava a felta Pharifea, de cuja fonte 
manoueftafupetfti^acuque com muita rezam 
lan^arao^e reprovarao muitos povos da Chril- 
tandade, apartaodofc defta maneira de ritos 
humanos, e chegandole roais a verdade da ef- 
cruura,que taes fabulas nam fabe,nem conhe- 
?eo, antes accufa aos que comiao dos facrifi- 
yios dos mof ros.dormiao junto das fepulturas, 
coulas todas Barbaras, e gentilicas: e a lei ve- 
da darle do dizimo , ou coufa faodificada a 
Deos ao que tocou em morto, quanto mais fi- 
quavedando lan&ifarfe de novo ao mefmo 
Deos coufa pello mcfmo morto. 


PafTa 


N 1 



246 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


194 Sx*m 

Pafla ao capitulo 26. e fe canfa cm rooftrar 
que he devido humilharfe o homem diance de 
Deos por feus peccados, fem aver para que 
gaftar nifto tempo, coufaque fabem os mini- 
nos que lerem pella lei, e falando 00s em ter. 
mos mui defviados. Mas o que ajunta, que he 
obriga^am cntrcgar a vida ao tormento, e 
morte, antes que ldolatrar, nam fe pode pro* 
var por lei, por que nella nam fe acna tal pre- 
9eito, £ o que allege, que ella manda amar a 
Deos com todo o cor?9am, e alma, nam faz 
nada para o intentoj antes * dahi fe pode tirat 
prova para o contrario: por que, amar, be ac- 
to de homem v iv€l,e o mono nam pode amar: 
fegpefe logo* que o homem he mandado amar 
a Deos viveodo. E fe bem o idolatrar he ado 
contrario ao amor, devefe confiderar a dife- 
ren^a que ha entrc o ado livre, e ado forba¬ 
de ; que fe eu idolatrar por vontade livre, ia 
moftroquelargei o amor: mas idolatrando 
por vontade fo^ada com tal genero de for^a, 
a faber, por tormento, e morte, ninguem diri 
que largei o amor, que no cora^am tem pofta 
fua raiz, pofto que £ fa9e do roal fiquou cuber- 
ta. Exemplo na molher para com jeu marido, 
que entrege na mao do inimigo, e amea9ada 
com a morte nam cometeo adulterio, e eftan- 
do livre, adulterou. 

E qpe. Deos nam pe9a a vjda ao homem, 
moftra a lei quando diz : B Agora JJtmI <jmc yede 

0 Sftor 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


247 


Das tradicocs. 19 f 

4 Stior Deos ten de ti j Pouco pede de ti o Snor 
Deos tcu : Nam te pede a vida : que te entre- 
ges ao fogo, e ao tormencojque andes em feus 
caminhos ce pede. t a lei foi dada para que o 
homem vivefie guardandoa , e nam para que 
morrefle . p*ra <\ue tn vivas , e tens filbos deffots 
deft. 

Nam faz em contra o Pfalmo 44. que alle- 

f a, por que aquelles males foram trazidos fo¬ 
re a povo por peccados, como da lei confta, 
e os que hoie morrem , nam morrem confef- 
fando a Deos, mas negandoo,nero em fua mao 
dh poderem livrarfe da mortejde que tudo fe 
mottra o juizo de Deos que dizemos. E fe to- 
da via aqueires Joffcfeados eram obrigados a 
confc fla i a D e o s na moire, epornamrofaze- 
rem mere^em major caftigo : defventuradas 
foram as almas que alii acabaram.com as quais 
nam pode a efperan^a do bem futuro , nem o 
temor do mal.para as obrigar a lofrer mais hu- 
ma piquena de dor. 

Sc perguntar fe faribem o homem que por 
nam idolatrar fe entregar ao rormenro : ref. 
ponder^mos que far 4 hum feito de cora^ao 
anfmpCct^mas fe Deos ilo Ihe nam pedia, nem 
o obrjgava era taes termos , fiquarlbeha por 
paga a memoria de feu feito entre os homens, 
pois Deos fe Ihe nao obrigou a pagar o tal fei¬ 
to: como a mol her que elcolhera morte, an¬ 
tes que o vil, e eftranho dominio. Por^m ve- 

N 3 mos 



248 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


196 Exame 

mos que Abraham, e Ifchac amarao mais a fua 
vida., queafuahonra ; ealeioenftna afazer 
a£fi , quando pos primeiro o preceito de nao 
matar que o de nam adultbrar. Eftando de fo¬ 
ra, todos faovalentes, e prometem: raasche- 
gadosaobra, o mais esfor^ado tcme. Kara 
nc tomar a efpada na mao , e peleijar com o 
inimigo : be fometer roiferavelmeute o pef- 
cofo,e corpo ao cruel miniilro carni^eiro^caf- 
tigoque Deo$ troupe por peccados. 

Della maneira fiquamos refpondendo a hu- 
ma pergunca bem con^ertada defte homem, 
em que nos perguntava para que era ferjudeu, 
ft' a vifta da piortc ouvelTemos de cometer ac- 
to de idolatria. por que Ihe rcfpondcmos que 
nao peccamos em nam dar a Deos aquillo que 
elle nos nam pedio, E com tudo fou cu bem 
Certo que efte que pergunta,nam digo eu a ^ il- 
ta da morte, mas a Jocnbra diTqfrafro a^outcs, 
rezarialogo toda a ladainha que Ihe fofTe man- 
dado rczar. De mim, pello contrario, nao fci 
o <^ue faria, que eu mdmo neileparticularme 
nao eonhego* 

Poislhe refpondemos ja a fua pergunta,lhe 
queremos agora fazer outra ; e perguntaroos 
Ihe porque nam guarda a lei de Deos , a cuja 
guardaelleo obriga, e guarda antes a falfr 
doutrina dc fabulofos, e falfos homcns » que 
nem tcm ja varas para o a^outar, nem pedras 
com que o apedreiar quando por elTc refpeito 


o qui 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


249 


Dm tradicois . 197 

o quizeffem fazer? Porque araa antes aodar 
fingido com elles, e (alarlhes i vontade efpe- 
raodo fua paga, do que ama feguir o camiubo 
que Deos Ibc deu para feguir, e profeiTando 
a guarda da lei, fe defrauda, e vazia do pre- 
mio que Deos por ella promete, apartando- 
fe, e defviandofe para outra parte? Em fim 
perguntamos a todo o feu povo.por que rezao 
nao.ro mg a Deos, e fe deixa pfre^er pelffts 
terras alneas,eja que tern Iei,por que a nao &- 
be ter 90m o fhdt&deHa? Nao ba varas, nao 
Ea pedras, nam ha morte, e com tudo podem 
mats com elle, e com todos, outros falibs ref* 
peitos, de que fe deixara levar, e vender, do 
que podem as palavras,e vozes de Deos; e por 
que tam pouco com elles podem , por ifo po¬ 
dem elles tam pouco com Deos. 

Cap.ip. Rctyondc4o2t doMl- 
verfario. 

D lz o $ego falfo , c mao , vafo dc toda a 
mali^ia, e abomina^ara , enganador de 
torpes, e ignorantes , que enganando, e fal- 
iando cuida ganhar fama, e ganhar pao, fama 
entre nef^ios, e pao deftes melmos, diz , que 
quem fe vai coftumando em mentirofas, e tal¬ 
ks opinioens, as abra^a como verdadeiras, 
fern repugnan^ia, nem alteram. Enamve, 
ncm quer ver feu infeliije, e miferavcl ef- 

N 4 tado. 



250 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Exam 

ttdo, e qne cllc he cftc mefmo vafo, quedcn- 
tro de fi tem recolbido coda a pc^onba, men* 
tira, e falfidadc, dc muitos ^entosde annos a 
cfta parte, epor eftar tarn habituado , e coftu- 
toado a ella, tudo o que nam be comer pe^o- 
nha, e engoifarfe tia mentira, feu eftamago o 
lan^a, e abomina. Falfo mao,eu nam mejufti- 
fico com Deos* cotoo tu dizes , nem ifo que- 
rem direr min has palavras, que f6vam ende- 
rccadasa moftrar, que nam deixa Dcos, nem 
defempara ao bomem, que fe Ihe entrega, e 
nettena* Mas a ttia Ungoa ton a, que nam fa- 
bc,ncm conhe^e o caminho da verdade,quem 
a poderi tirar de corner, e fallar, pois nifo tem 
pofto feu abrigo? Dizes que fbuodiado, ea- 
Dorre^ido atl de meus proprios irmaons. Seja 
tudo, e mais do que tu dizes, e vendeflemme 
dies para Egypto,quem te pare9e que foi me- 
lbor, Toiepfe vandrao , ou os faUos irmaons 
vendedores? Es tarn torpe,baixo, e vil que ate 
em veftidos falas.Sabe Deos que por amor da 
tua maldade, e dos teus, fiz eu atguns que na6 
ouvera de fazer,po r que conbe$o quais lam a- 
quelles que me fenrem, mas de nenhuma ma- 
neirapudefugird* tuam&lingoa. Se andara 
humilde, ajuntaras mais falfidades das que di¬ 
zes , pintando meu eftado miferavel. Se me 
vifto dizes que trago a alegria nos veftidos. O 
lingoa de bibora, acomicham que trazesno 
corpo te ponha Deos inda na lingua. Dizes 

que 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


251 


Dm Trtdicocs, ipp 

que o elephante, o lead, e outras nroicasali- 
man as pafiam muito melhor qu t o boncnk 
Alimanas te efpeda^ero pois adi pagas a De¬ 
os ingrata befta; e nam pode ter boa vida, ocm 
botnfimmulo tarn mali^ioio, e efcoo^inba- 
dor. E quern ouvird a huma be% desaibrada 
dizer qoe melhor he o carafe, pot que fe fatta 
dd"fPrilfa;' t fa/elo na eftreraria de feudooo, 
que o dono por cuja mad come, <jie o eofruu 
e cavalga nelle? £m fim tu indigno eras do fer 
deTioroem, e pois vivesdemaxieiraqoe os in- 
finiros males que paffas nefta rida nam fe po- 
diam mitigar, como dizes, fe nam com efpe- 
ran^as de bens futuros (e logo fe nefta vida o 
deixarem viver com aquillo que nella fe node 
alcan^ar, ha de refponder que nefte inferno 
quer viver para fempre) pede a Deos que te 
mude o fcr, e te lan<;e entre as beftas, fartarte- 
has de langue, e fe nam poderes alcao^ar a pe- 
t^am,enforcate.defpenards fua empenada al¬ 
ma. Digo que te fortards de fartgue , por que 
t da he a comida das alimanas feras, cujofer, 
c eftado cnvejas: rrvel, e manteiga nam come- 
ras, por que perderd o labor na tea boca. Nad 
gozards ae todo o bem que Deos fb criou pa¬ 
ra o homem, e nam o communicou aos outras 
animaes. Nam re^eberdotcus olbos contefi- 
tamento da formofura das criatoras,9cos,fol, 
luma, e cftrelas, terra, e todo feu ornato.Nad 
fe deleitardm tuas orelhas com a fuavidadc da 

N j mulica 



252 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


ao o Exam* 

imifica natural aos paflarinhos,e artifi^iofa do 
Jbome. Nao con he^er^oem te entrara a deli, 
cadeza dos cbeiros. Deixaras a cama inimoia, 
limpa, e lavada, revolvertehas no efterco, ou 
no mato entre os efpinhos-Nao lcras Inor das 
eriatnras,cuio dominio defefticnas,e nam me- 
re^es, mas fcris fervo, e eferavo delias. Em 
fim privarteha Deos do lume rational que tc 
dcupara o conbe^eres,e louvares confideran- 
do as gra^iofas merges que contigo quizufar 
Sc m dc tua parte aver caufa, nem mere^iroen- 
to,e bquaris no numero dos £apos ifenco,e li- 
vre de triftezas at^ que alguen. te ponha o pe, 
eiprema.e deixe na terra tua pe^ouha. Rcbela 
inirmgo contra Deos , a uda o conlelho dos 
malinos,qaeafor<;ade4ua lei tem desfeito, e 
annullado; unta, e engroffaos olhos do yego, 
e ignoranteipovo com cof\fulbcns, e palhadas 
cheasdedefpropofitos, e locuras, que contra 
clles.e contra ti rebelas,ecle voflas rebeliocns 
vos aveis dc colher o fruit© como colheis,c eu 
com vos nam ver, e eftar longe de vos vivirei, 
e me feri a vida agradavel, que nam podia fer 
andando na vofla companhia: c aqui fazemos 
fim em refponderte. 

Nam tratamos fobre a encontrada f6 , que 
efte diz fe deve & tradiyao repugnantc & lei ef- 
crita, e proves com que quer juftificar ieus lo- 
nhos, e falfidades, por que, comoja difemos, 
nam queremos gaftar tempo com gente obfti- 

C-ida, 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


253 


Ddt tr/ulicoZs. ftoi 

nada, que fecha astorelhas,e arrojadamcotc fe 
J*n<;aaoqocvaifeguindo: averdadecalca, c 
trjlha: a mendra refebe,e ama. 

Outro fi nam cracamos lbbrc a contadas fu- 
as lumas,rouitas fabulas,torturas,e falfas alle- 
ga^ocns, e foraente queremos por diantehum 
cxemplo faftt^e claro de entendcr a quaiiqurr 
emend imentos limitados, epoftodle, dcuca- 
los fabular, e fazer coroo quizerem* No anoo 
jjSz foi luma nova aos iz de mar^o as (ioco 
boras da manham:no mefmo dia fc fez priori- 
pio de mes, e ie comc^ou a contar para a fefta 
dos afmos,e outras que defta conta depcdem* 
No anno ieguinte 5 3 8 3 foi luma nova a 30 de 
mar^o 4 s onze boras da noite, eomcs feco- 
mc^ou a cocar do primeiro de abtil.Nefte an¬ 
no y 3 84. foi luma nova a 19 de roar^o 4s qua- 
tro boras da manham , c o mes fe come$ou a 
contar aoszi. Affiquccm todoseftestresarv* 
nos condnuos fe fizeram diferentes conta*, 
bora contando o primeiro dia * bora o fegun- 
do, hora o ter^eiro. Charaem eftes agora hum 
tregeitador que com a delicadeza da arte nos 
fa$a parser que codas eftas tres contas (am 
huma raeftna, e nellas ie nam acha variedade, 
nem altera^am. Ou deiavergonhenfe aaffir- 
mar.como fazem.que para tudo tinham li^en- 
9a, e que a lei deizou a feu alvedrio finalar os 
mefesjC os dias como bem fe Ihes antojaflfe. 





254 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


SOI Exame 

Otf .20. Em tfnefe moftra qxt 4 tpiniab da im. 
mor alidade que perm bens > e malts eta - 
nos, nab he psadoja, mas impia. 

D Ada a refpofta que nos pare^eo baftantc 
para eonfufam do mao, que contra a 
verdade (e quiz oppor, moftrar^mos nefte ul¬ 
timo cap. oS grandes inconvemences.e abfur- 
dos que acompanham i opiniam da imirtorta- 
lidade. Algun* dizem que he piadofo cuidar 
que as almas fa6 immortals,e refta ao homem 
ootra vida para vie er, boa, ou m4, conforme 
feu mere^imento. No$,pellocontrario,dize- 
mos que he itnpio, e o moftrar^mos pellos e(- 
feit os dahi naf^idos. 

Vendofe oshomens poftos emhuraeftado 
de anguftia, e defefpera^am, qual era porlhes 
dianre caftigo eterno pellos males que nefta 
vida coroetefTem,e defejando achar algum ca- 
minbo.por onde lan^aflem de fi carga tam pe- 
zada, foraonfe ter com o mefmo Deos,e qui- 
zeram qne elle mefmo Fofle (atisfacao por Tu¬ 
ts culpas defies, dizendo que era mas tnaons 
«am avia com que poder ptfga? > t Delias tam 
pouco eftava deixar de pecear, bor onde a fei 
era impoffl’tit de fc guardar. Se efte penfa- 
mento he piadoTo , outem atguma toufa de 
contrario deixo acadahumpara cuidar den- 
tro de fi. 


Os 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


255 


Dm trddieois . 20 j 

Os Pharifeus^cocnoudifemos, recorrerao 
i tranfmigra^am das almas, inventario dife- 
rcntes gcneros de purgatories, delatinos, que 
todos pro^edcm daquella fonce, a labcr, para 
aliviar o torroento, e pena, que na$ eonf^ien- 
rias move, e levanta id a imaeina^am de ma¬ 
les eternos,por amor da qual cnaraou com rc- 
zam Luthero 4 rcligiam Pontifi^ia* carm^ei- 
fa, e algoz 3as con T^ten^ias, quemoftravao 
mal, enelle deixava os Womens iem remedio: 
porque nam tinha elle por remedio nefte ca- 
fo.deixar aoalvedrio de cadahura fua ialva- 
pm. Adi que tambem no penfamento dos 
Pharileus nara ha piadadej por que, que pie- 
dade pode aver em fonhar lonhos, e delirios 
apartados da verdade divina? e como nam (e 
chamar4 antes impio , e mao, mixturar com 
fualimpa doutrina fabulas, e nugas mininei- 
ras? 

Moftraie mais a impiedade » porque poem 
eftaopiniamem Deosa crueldade , que nam 
quer por nos homensj por que diz que cadiga 
Deos com males etemos a culpa de hum ho- 
mem que o Rei,e Juiz da terra ter4 por muito 
caftigar com caftigo de hum dia. Por exem¬ 
pt o: Ouve hum matador, falteador, adultero, 
fa^inorolo em todos os crimes que le podera 
cometer, tem o juiz da terra por muito, cafti¬ 
gar hum tal homem com caftigo vagarofo, e 
entende que bafta raatalo com algum genero 



256 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


204 Exsme 

de morte propor^ianada ao cafo que comc- 
teo, mas tal que nam pare^a cruel, e tyranna; 
porque affi como a natureza aborre^e o cri¬ 
me, tambem aborre^e a crueldade.Pois como 
fe atreve a temeridade humana a por nota de 
cniel na quelle Deos, que tem por citulo fer 
longo de iras , e rauito em mifericordia: que 
diz que ja lhe peza de caftigar o mundo per- 
verfo, e mao, como nos dias de Noach, com 
bum cafttgo temporal, e promete de na5 ufar 
mais com elle daquella maneira? Como fe po- 
deridizerfem onenfa da infinita mifericor- 
dia, e bondade que criaffe Deos o homem, e 
que por fim de rezoens, feja por aqui, ou feja 
por alii, poucos dos naf^idos fejam os que fe 
nlraflem, e falvem , e os mais delies fern nu- 
mere fe per^am, e, o que mais he, eftejam ef- 
tes perdidos, e danados no inferno que fe pin* 
ta, (oltando com a impa^ien^ia da dor fuas 
llngoas contra o C¥tad<5f quC os crfSTl, ceftfs 
fejam ostouvoFCSTJQe ette ou^a de fa a Boca? 
Deixoo grande erro que envolve imaginar, 
on comjeber que o homem pode fazer obra 
boa, ou mi, pella qual mere9a premio,ou caf- 
rigo infinito fendoellehuma criatura limita- 
da, e finita, cujo poder affi para bem, como 
malobrarfeeftenaea bempouco; e a jufti^a 
nam pcemei, nem caftiga alem do mere^ime- 
to da obraje affi por jufti^a nao rero o homem* 
com que obrigar a Deos a galardam eterno 

por 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


257 


Das Tbadicots. 20 f 

«of fiias obras > como tambem nam he dete- 
dor por elks de caftigo,e pena eterna.E fe di- 
feremos que por jufti^a nam he Deos deredor 
aohomemdetaes bens, mas qoe por gra^a 
Ibosquizdar, jalan^amos fora a ne^emdade 
que a jufti^a traz contigo, e he ne^effario qoe 
moftremosquea tal gra^a quiz Deos fazer. 
Moftralo nam podemos por rezam, por pala- 
rra diyina era ne^eflario que o moftrafTemos, 
e eis nam o podemos acbar nella encre as mui- 
tas promeflas que declara, econtem. Iftole 
entende quanto aos bens, os quais da Deos, e 
pode dar graijiofamente, mas quanto aos ma¬ 
les, fepomosque ohomem nam pode fazer 
obra que mere^a caftigo infinito, e affi que de 
jufti^a nam pode fer caftigado infiratamente, 
de gra^a nao fe dao males, porqne ifo encon- 
tra a tnefma jufti^a. 

Mais fe moftra, porqne cfi efta opiniao mo- 
tivo a fe defeftimarem os bens,e males prefen- 
tes, pellos quais quiz Deos fer amado, louva- 
do, e temido das fuas criaturas: por que pon- 
dofeosolhosno infinito, todo o finito por 
grande oue feja, fiqua 4 fua vifta vil, e de ncn- 
numa eftirna. Que cafo fard da vida prefente 
aquelle que diz tern outra para viver? Que 
moito he que fe achem homens que com ofal- 
fo fuppofto da enganofa religiam que profef- 
facn, fe difponham aquerer matar prin9epes, 
e fiiors, pois cuidam que nifo fe falram, e pa£« 

fando 



258 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


2o6 £X4Mt 

faQ^p hum breve tormento caminham para 
longa, e etenw gloria? AfG que di efta Falla 
opiniam motivo a defeftimar a vida, e os bens 
della, e o mefmo enlina a defeftimar os males 
prefentes com a conGdera^am dos futuros; e 
em lugar de concert ar o mundo, nam faz mais 
que obrar nelle infinitas defordens, e delcon- 
9 ercos , cam lodge de dar teraor de Deos que 
antesotira. Tiraotemor de Deos, porque 
como arras diferaos, os mais dos home ns bu(- 
caram caminbo para faft^ar de G o temor de 
males etemos. fc ets Iancam de G o temor dos 
eteraos, os prefentes deteftimam com a efpe- 
ran^a de bens Gituros, e dizem que aos bons 
os ck umbem Deos, e \i fe vai todo o teraor. 
t*ello contrario fe o homera fizefle conta con- 
figo, e entendefle que efta vida lhe deu Deos 
para yiver.e que paflala bem,e achar boa mor- 
te be a fua bemavehturanja, e huma, e outra 
coufa, a faber, viver, e acabar bem, pende de 
ftias obras que Deos olha, e galardoa confor- 
me mere^em ; vifto o muito que o homem fe 
ama, e naturalmente defeja feu bem, impodi- 
vel era deixarde procuralo com toda fua for- 
^a.aquietandofe na vontade de Deos,e feu tc- 
raor. E que nam fejam ne 9 eiIarios majorcs 
bens,nem majores males para confervar o ho¬ 
mem no temor de Deos quedizemos.le mof- 
tra daro; porque inda eftante a confidera^am 
dosfuturos, fazem regularmenteoshomens 

mais 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


259 


Dds tradicots. zof 

mais por eftes prefentes que por elles. O que 
fd os engana he nao verem o caftigo no me£ 
mo inftanteque peccaram, que fe lfto viram, 
nao ouvera homem que nao andara tremendo 
diancede Deos da maneira que fe treme dian- 
te do Rei, cujo caftigo fe lente nas ancas do 
peccado. Delenganele pois otrifte homem, 
e pofto nao ou£a a voz de Deos que o maada 
enforcar,alli como ouve a do juiz da terra.en- 
tenda 1 e fauba que de iima vera fua fentenca, e 
que os caftjgos,e mudan^as do mundo deDe¬ 
os (eraovem, einda que tardem, chegao. De 
todo o moftrado fe feeue o que polemos,a fa- 
ber, que nao ha piadaae em por bens, e males 
eternos para o homem, antes impiedade con- 
traria 4 bondade, e jufti^a divina, e que os 
bens , e males prefentes que Deos promete 
lam baftantes, e mais aparelhados para o con- 
fervar em feu temor: a elle le encorvem todas 
as na^oens, c a feu fan&o nome digao louvor 
por toda a eternidade Amen. 


F I M. 


Por que no dilcurfo falamos algumas vezes 
fobre o mundo aver de eftar para fempre, e 
nam fe acabar a gera^am , nos pare^e conve¬ 
nience propor brevemente efla queftao. 

O Queftao 



260 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


3,08 Exame 

Queftao. 

Terfontofe fe os feos, e 4 terra acabardo, e far a 
Deos confoma^ao comas creator as, 00 
folio contrarto tttdo e flora 
femfim. 

Refpondemos qtte tttdo tflora femfim, eaaofo¬ 
ra Deos com as creator as coofomafoo. 

P Rovafe primeiro pella palavra diyina, e 
concerto feito com Noach defpois do di- 
luvio, em que Deos promete affi aos homens 
comoatodo rtftode alma viva que nam fara 
mais juizo univerfal comelles adi comoavia 
feito : e para pad fazer dito juizo toma mod- 
vo da corrup^am* ou ma inclirta^m do cora- 
Gentfi J f am huroano, c diz : For que 0 penf*mento does- 
S.n. rafao do homem maodes defuamooidade: e mao a- 
Jhm tares matt para motor todo vivettte off com fit. 
Do qual motivo fe confirma mais a promeffa, 
por que a caufa que podia fervir para mais pro 
vocar a juftiqra divjoa, e efpertar fua ira para 
faaer confuma^am com creatura de coracam 
tam mao, efla toma Deos para aver de apiadar 
fobre c 11a, e nam perder por feu refpeitotodo 
o refto dos viventes. Confirmafe mais,por que 
querendo Deos moftrar que aquella proraclfa 
feria eteroa, e nam feria mudavel era tempo 
ver,%z algum, ajunta: At ad a (quer dizer, daqui a di- 

ante) 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


261 


Dot tradicoti, aop 

tote) todes os dias da terra (em quanto a terra 
durar) fementeira, efegada, efrio, e caltma aeftio, 
titeverao, edia,enoitettaofsjfdrdS. Em quanto 
Oliver terra nam falrarA homed que a cuitive, 
etodas as coufas (uftentar&m feu curfo orde- 
nado, c atequi (eguido. pondoporencare^i- 
mento aquellas palavras: todos os dias da terra; 
e nam para fe enrender que a terra teria dias 
Jimirados, c acabaria, coufa contra toda a re- 
zam natural, e contra a mefma efcritura nos 
lugares que adiante fe moftrario.E eis que do 
allcgado le prova que Deos nam faria mais u- 
niverfal juizo da maneira que fez nos diasde 
Noach j logo muito mais (e fiqua provando 
que nam fat& univerfal juizo arrematando, e 
confumando todas as creamras de maneira que 
nam aja mais multiplica^am deltas, e fe extin- 
gam todas as efpe^ies. 

a. Se prova pella lei no Deuteronomio cap. Don. 
it. onde, querendo moftrarqueapromefla 1 ** 11 * 
que Deos fez aos pais, foi promefla infinita, 
nam achou outro melhor modo que dizendor 
para tjae fe maltipliqttem vojfos dias# dias de vojfos 
filhos fibre a terra qaeiserottoSnor a vojfos pais pa- 
radar a ellescomo es diasdos fees fibre a terra, 

J. Se prova do plalmo: Lotsvaio os fees dot 
ceos (os mais altos $eos) easagoas quefobreos fe- 147. 
n, lottvem 0 name deSnoriporqtteillemandoM^e fo¬ 
rdo creados efex. eflar a elles para fempre,e fempre: 
eRatatt pos t enaopajfard, Criou Deosos^eos 

O 2 para 



262 


’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


*19 Bxam 

para eftarcm fern finale pos eftatuto.e foro,ef. 
tatuto inviolavel, e itnmudavel, eftatuto que 
mmgoflara.Irmejabucap. 33.4$? difi0 S*h: 
Sr** (Tor, duxar, permane9er ) t men con fate 
comodia^t com a moite^eSiatntos dos feos c da term 
naapm: tambem afimeute dc Iahacdb etcet* de 
maneira que o dia,e a noite,os 9C0S, e a terra 
pos o Snor por eftatutos perpetuos para dura- 
rein, e eftarem fern fim, fem fe interromper, 
nem mudar hum ponto a ordem que lhes deu 
para guardar. 

O raelmo fe prova de outros muitos luga- 
res. pfalmo 104. fuudon a terrafibre fnas bafis : 
mao re/valard farafimpre,efimpre. Pfalmo 9 3. 
Tambemfifirmard 0 mttmdo , mao refvaUrd . do 

r : tudo fe moftra que os 9eos,a terra,o mun- 
, ascreaturas, tudoeftar 4 fem fim, como 
tambem a rezam enfina, e nuuqua le acabari. 

Namobftamas authoridades com que al- 
gans jpretendem moftrar que o mundo terd 
fim, fe forem enteudidas com entendimento 
de homens, e nam com entendimento de mi- 
ninos , que realmente minini^e he abra^ar a- 
quillo que appare^e a fa^e fem juizo, nem ref. 
pcito ao fentido de quern fala.AUegam osrer- 
fos do pfalmo 1 oa. que dizem que os 9eos pe- 
re9erao, envelhc9erao, e Deos os mudara co¬ 
mo fe rciuda hum veftido,e nam atentam a que 
propofito alii fe trazem eftas coufas, e a que 
fim atira aquclle que as diz,para affi formarem 

con- 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


263 


Dae TraMcoes, )n 

coof clto,e cntcndcrem o que qtier dhetySut* 
iodilcretameme fc arrojam , e arremeflam as 
polavras oua$> e efpidas. Hale, pots, de faber 
que aquelle pfalmo fe inticala T ora^nn do afii- 
gido, e defpois de nette fe debuxar, e retratar 
a angtiftia, e miferavel cftado de bum africft, 
para obrigar a Deos a que fe cotrrpade^a delle, 
argument a da vaidade da vida humana>e etei- 
nidade da eften^ia divina,e para mais moftnur, 
e confirmar efta eternidade, diz por impoffi- 
vel, que os 9 cos reram fim, e fe far am velbos, 
mas a Divindade eterna fempre (era a me fine, 
e feus annos nam teram remate,nem firo,e diz 
affi. Afig te cm 0 cam in ho mirth* fortolex* , cm- 
cttrttm mens Mas. Direi , Dees mem nao mcfofas 
ftthir cm omejodc mem Mas:pergerafao, e gera- 
cao tern annos. De antes a terra funda fie t e ohra de 
tuas mats os fees. Ella per e per do , e ttt eft or asx to- 
dos clies como veftidoerrvelheferdo: come vefiidmra 
osmmdards, eferae mndados. Etna mefme,etem 
annos nae fe aeaharde. Meus dias Suor, limira- 
dos,tu pdlo contrario infiniro, e tarn infinite, 
e eterno,que tu mefmo obrafte ifto que ao pa- 
re^er de muiros nam teve prtn^ipio , e como 
obrador, todas eftas coufas poderas trocar, e 
mudar de feu eftado ( ali 4 s nam o fara) por^ra 
tu es immudavd, fempre hum, fern altera9ao, 
nem mudan^a, c tens annos nam poderdro ter 
fim. Afli que efte he o natural, e verdadeiro 
fentidodolugar y e he eftLlo nam f6 hua vez 

O 3 ulado 



264 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


«n Exame 

ufado ms efcrimrts, aoqual be (emdhante o 
quefelenade Jiob. Audardm as agoasdo mar y 
esriofefard feco t efecarfeba; Eohomem jaxxo t e 
team feltvautardi faltarimagoas no mar (fah 
por impoffivel, poderdm faltar,fe bcm nam fc 
dacafo, emquepofla fer) pOrdro o homem 
dormido nacova , nuquajamais fe levant ard. 
**• EJqueferfeha a meiber do ft Use dofeu peito, moseu 
mm me efquecere* de vos, Iropoflivcl he que fc 
eiqae^a, e totalmenteo lao^e de ii.elhe nege 
o peito,mas fobre efte impoffivehmais impof¬ 
fivel he aver eu deeique^erme de vos. 

Cgp.vL Allegam tambem de Jefahiabu: Torque com 

time as ceos norm, e terra nova, os quais eufatente eftar 
^ tr * 1% -ddatue de mim, dife o Suer: djji eftard voftdfeme *• 
te , evojfo name querendo daqui inferir que De- 
os fari hun&novos 9eos, e hua nova terra.En- 
tendimento femelhante ao da alIega9ao pafla- 
Dm. da; conforme ao qual quando a lei diz que os 
aS.»i. 9C0S feriam ao povo de metahe a terra feria de 
fcrro, avia milter que mudafle Deos a fubf- 
tao9ia deftes 9eo$, e defta terra, e os formaiTe 
de novo doutra ma9a.He, pois,o fentido,que 
Deos mudard a qu alidade dos 9eos de maneira 
que lejatn faudaveis, e do9es aos que viverem 
debaixo delles, e a terra fard fru&ifera, e de- 
leitofa, afli como pellos peccados faria oqeo 
pezado, e malino, 990 de bronle, e a terra,in- 
tfdm frudifera, trifle, e efcabrofa, terra de fcrro. 
*° 7, . Afli diz no Plaimo: Eos os rios por deferto : e as 

fudas 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


265 


Dae tradiedes. ti| 

ftidas das areas for Ittgar dofecttra. terra defrm- 
to for ftlgadara : fella malicia dos <jm meravam 
nella. Pos o defer to for ajmttamentade agio# terra 
de fecttra for Jatdas de areas. De maneim que 
mu da Deos as qualidades dos 9COS, e da terra, 
e a ifo fc cbama novos ^cos, e nova terra, pel* 
los diferentes effeitosj por&n o $eo, e a terra 
fempre'eftd iffimudavel cm feu lugar .e averda- 
de propofta,que ttodo perraaneceri fern fim,e 
nam fara Deosjuizo uniyerfal com as cream* 
ras nerq de agoa, nem de Togo, como <fi*enu 
para confumilas de todo, por que a promefia 
ne nam aver de confumilas, fiqaa fern let con¬ 
tra G coufa que fe lhe pofla com verdade, e 
fundamento oppor,antes fundada,e forrifica- 
da por authoridades expreflos da lei, qneafa- 
2am de boa vontade re9ebe, e abra9a. 


Soneto aos rebeldes porfiofos do povo. 


A O ND E vat fego cohadq? Sait fa: 
MtShomqmem tegmjo: Noo megmjo, 
Mat Je bum omigotego me comfio, 
■Amigo mfie comma, qmeo uo trei. 
Trijle de ti, mot vet qm maada o lei. 

At moot trbmfcor 00 dorotio, 

E turn oovrir do fml ft 0 comttfrio 
Como io per eOoem porte tt m e fho f 


Anda,<jne tmrnoi fobes ofegredr, 

JP*w emfimo tSle mem (ego, qme me leva , 
JgmeJfeefcomdidt eflam femrofiotdo . 
Torn cep qmeafit ooto fern enrtde, 

I mo memtbro vom tome fe enkvo. 

Do lode motqno fmba do pnfomdo. 


s o- 



266 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


**4 


SONETO 

Em 

Nomdcalgtns do p&po quafi pc 
menus. 

D Vreut Grave, teima parfiafie, 

jiulaer encfittSro a Dcot cotuimtudo t 
Dafvia para a mat, 0 bem mud ado, 
Erradafegwromfa tom dantfa. 

Easegaa das am megmjam vemmfe. 

Or dim per das, qurdcapa c err ado. 

Me tem otri&e corf affi ebuado, 
Mttdada em frame a frameJaadoja, 

Se tar jura a 0am Dias perfeitamome, 

D ftta daestriju, e let me ape far a, 

H4j< Da camertoefetokrad* ar repew d e da: 

Ententes metnevarareda a feme y 
E etie cornea da amtes me chamara, 

Efte 0 pevo a meets, fUtafaerida, 

Paztosvcr da4ciros. 



EXAMINATION 
of Pharisaic Traditions 
Compared with the Written Law 

by 

'URI’EL HEBREW JURIST 

with Reply to One 

SEMU’EL DA SILVA 

who Exercises the Medical Profession, his 
Perfidious Calumniator 


AMSTERDAM 

In the Printing-house of Paulo a Ravesteyn 
Year of Creation 
5384 




To the Reader 


Thus spoke Yehosua c and Kaleb to the people: 


Do not lend your ears to the treacherous clamour of those who, 
opposing God, obstruct and impede your welfare [Cf. Nm. 14, 7-10]. 

But, as the people's hearts were already beguiled and captivated 
by the false reports, not only were they not heeded, but they were about 
to be stoned, and might have well been, had the glory of the Lord not 
appeared promptly to save them. 

I had begun to speak my mind on behalf of the truth of the Law, 
but the hearts of men were incapacitated from accepting it. Not only 
was I not heard but I should have found many stones upon myself, had 
God not taken the stones out of the people's hands and had He not 
denied them the power to inflict sentences. I still wanted to speak. 
Besides putting down my thoughts in writing, I continued to make other 
strenuous efforts to demonstrate the truth of what I was saying, until 
time taught me that all energy spent in this direction would be lost and 
that no purpose was served in persevering to offer good advice to such 
as would not listen to it and who, moreover, requited good with ill. 
As for my writing, I gathered up my papers and gave up the idea of 
publishing them. But then a medical doctor came out with a treatise 
full of vilification, which he entitled "On the Immortality of the Soul.” 
It is imperative that a pernicious and hostile mouth should never go 
unanswered and that people should be given a chance to judge opinions 
on their merit. These considerations impelled me to compose a short 
compendium whose dual purpose is therefore to counter an evil man 
who uses calumny to further his unjust cause, and also to reduce the 
danger of people being altogether misled by him. This, then, is my aim 
and since my intention is to be brief, let us come straight to the point. 

The sources of cited passages are given in the margin: first chapter, 
then verse . 1 


In our edition the sources are given between brackets following the citations. 




Chapter 1 


Proposition 1 


The Tradition which is called Oral Law is not a true tradition, nor 
did it originate with the Law. 

[1.] The Tradition called Oral Law is contrary to the Written Law, 
as will become apparent from the examples which follow. Two opposites 
are incompatible and truth cannot be found in both. Therefore the 
Tradition which is contrary to the Law must be false if the Law is true, 
which it is. This is my first argument. 

2. It does not appear from the Law that any explanation was given 
with it apart from that contained in the Law itself. If another explana¬ 
tion had been given, it is inconceivable that it should not have been 
referred to in some part of the Law: therefore a supplementary explana¬ 
tion was not given. 

3. If the Law were not comprehensible without an oral explana¬ 
tion, it would follow that the Law was imperfect and did not allow of 
understanding. Such a defect is not to be attributed to the Law and it 
is necessary that its explanation be contained in the Law itself and not 


l The introductory "[General] Proposition" (Chapter 1) is a revised version and 
enlargement of the seventh of the eleven "objections to Tradition" which da Costa had 
drawn up eight years earlier (1616) and sent to the Spanish-Portuguese Congregation of 
Venice. Even in 1616 da Costa put obsolete laws and customs and those with current 
applicability on the same footing. All eleven objections were replied to by Leon Modena 
(1571-1648), the spiritual leader of Venetian jewry. As pointed out in our Introduction, 
at an unknown date da Costa's 1616 objections were incorporated by Modena, along with 
his own replies, in a work entitled magen ve-sina ("Shield and Buckler"), now our only 
source for the tenor of da Costa’s objections as he had formulated them in 1616. Cf. part 2 
of our Introduction for a discussion of the changes undergone by those that were incor¬ 
porated by da Costa in 1624, as a result of his reactions to Modena's replies and stric¬ 
tures. As we shall see further on, even in this section of his book da Costa refers and 
reacts to material presented in da Silva's book which issued from the press the year before. 



272 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


be committed to a memory and mind outside it. Therefore the true 
explanation which is to be found within the Law is sufficient for its 
understanding. 

4. The king is commanded to transcribe the Book of the Law 
[Dt. 17, 18] and to read in it in order to observe and carry out all the 
words and statutes written therein; there is no depositary of the oral 
Law whom he is commanded to consult. Therefore, what the king recites 
must be the lesson of the Law, and not some fictitious material 
committed to memory. 

5. Mose wrote in the Law all the explanation he had available. This 
is proven, because after having been with the Lord on Mount Sinai for 
forty days when they say he received the oral explanation, he still 
needed to consult the Lord about the man who had chopped wood on 
the Sabbath day 2 [Nm. 15, 32-34] and on other occasions he consulted 
on behalf of the daughters of Selofhad [Nm. 27, 5-6; 36: 5-6, 10]. Thus 
Mose had not received any explanation other than the one he wrote, 
as these cases and similar ones attest. 

Beyond Yarden, in the land of Mo'ab, Mose desired to explain this Law, 
saying [...] [Dt. 1, 5]. 

This means that here follows in writing the explanation of the Law 
given by Mose himself. 

6. So there is no room left for any explanation or Tradition, apart 
from what is written down in the Law. Besides, it stands to reason that 
any explanation indispensable to the Law would have had to be written 
down at the same time as the Law itself if the Law was incomprehen¬ 
sible without it. 3 Since they claim that the Tradition was not written 


2 The Hebrew meqoses c esim "gathering wood”) (Nm. 15, 32-33) is mistranslated 
cortan lenas "chopping wood”) in the Constantinople Pentateuch (1547), but correctly 
rendered colligente ligna by Santi Pagnini (Utriusque instrumenti nova translatio, Lyons, 
1528) and coscogien leiias in the Bible of Ferrara (1553). It is highly unlikely that da Costa 
knew of the Constantinople Pentateuch, so we are left with the question of how and why 
the Constantinople Pentateuch and da Costa came up with the same mistranslation. 

3 This argument is based on two assumptions which are far from self-evident: 
a) that a written document should be totally self-explanatory and b) if for any reason 
a written document does stand in need of a supplementary explanation, that explana¬ 
tion cannot be oral. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


273 


down at the same time as the Written Law, it could never have 
originated with the Law. 

7. Our principal proposition [that no Oral Law was given along 
with the written Law] is proven because of the manifest impossibility 
of faithfully transmitting from mouth to mouth, for nearly two thou¬ 
sand years, from its origin until the completion of the so-called Babylo¬ 
nian Talmud, an explanation of the Law, filling so many tractates. 

8. Furthermore, in the epoch of the Judges the people left the 
straight and narrow path and each, as the text says, did what was right 
in his own eyes. Then during the time of the Kings the book of the Law 
was lost, which, as if it were a new thing, after being forgotten, was 
read in the ears of the people, and only as a result of that reading was 
the Festival of Unleavened Bread reinstituted, a feast that at one time 
must have been so popular. Thus it would have been totally impossible 
for the explanation of the Law to have been preserved, when the Law 
itself was not observed and had lapsed from memory. 

9. Were every copy of the Talmud's text to be lost, it would be 
impossible to reconstruct from memory alone the explanation of the 
Law as contained therein, and this in spite of all the study of the 
Talmud that goes on, whereby memory is daily refreshed. Before it was 
committed to writing, then, how much less could it have been pre¬ 
served intact by memory alone for perfect transmission — and that by 
one individual. 

10. But of course what is said about the chain of transmission, 
namely that the explanation received with the Law on Mount Sinai 
remained oral to be passed on from individual custodian to his disciple 
— another individual — down the generations, cannot be true. For it 
would follow that to each of these individuals who became depositaries 
of the Oral Law would be given and owed the same credit which was 
given to Mose himself, who was approved and justified as a witness 
of the living God before an entire people. And each of these transmitters 
would then be a new legislator, an absurdity so intolerable, so far¬ 
fetched, that it is sufficient by itself to confound and put to shame the 
authors and defenders of this baneful error. 

11. In fact we know the Tradition was committed to writing over 
a long period of time, successive generations adding what they thought 
their predecessors had omitted. This demonstrates that what they wrote 



274 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


was not traditional, for had it been Tradition, the first to write should 
have written it all, as he must have been in possession of it all, seeing 
that it was only through him that it could have been transmitted to 
the later writers. Instead, each author added to the existing corpus 
whatever seemed fit to him. 

12. If such an unbroken tradition really existed, how could the 
discord between the teachers and sages themselves be accounted for? 
And what about the factions and dissensions occasioned when the first 
attempt was made to insinuate that this Oral Law was a traditional 
explanation of the Written Law? (This innovation was presumably made 
by people who wanted to temper legislation which seemed harsh to 
them and saw no other means of introducing the desired corrective. 
But they will also have sensed that it was to their advantage, in so far 
as it enabled them to dominate and subject the people to their orders 
and regimens.) 

Their own account of the origin of the Oral Law goes like this: 
Ezra 4 transmitted it to Simeon the Righteous, high priest; Antigonus 
his disciple received it from him, and passed it on to his companions 5 , 
including Sadoq and Boethus, the heresiarchs, as they call them. 
Reading between the lines of their account, one detects what really 
happened, namely that this Oral Law was an innovation which Anti¬ 
gonus with a few others wanted to introduce. They were immediately 
opposed by their contemporaries Sadoq and Boethus. That was the 
beginning of the schism concerning the validity of the Oral Law. 
A minority comprising the most important, learned and noble part of 
the people, sided with Sadoq and Boethus; the supporters of the Oral 
Law appealed to the populace by sweet allurements which they 
infiltrated into their preaching, such as immortality of the soul and mild 
penalties. The common people readily inclines to these enticements, 
because immortality is a desirable prize, and human nature is more 
inclined to mercy and pity than to the rigour of justice. 

However, even among themselves disagreements occur continually. 
Their own explanation of this internecine strife is as follows. Semaya 
and 'Abtalion transmitted the Oral Law to Hillel and Samai who in 


4 Da Costa here and elsewhere uses the Portuguese form of the name, Esdras, 
which derives from the Greek. 

5 Da Costa's word is companheiros ; he understood, as we see further on, that they 
were Antigonus' contemporaries. Cf. Mishna, Abot 1, 3; Abot of Ribi Natan A, 5, where 
they appear as his disciples. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


275 


turn attracted infinite numbers of disciples. Due to this proliferation 
schisms developed and the Law became as two Laws. Hence one finds 
throughout the books of the Talmud: the House of Hillel says this and 
the House of Samai says that, one always the contrary of the other. 
Yet not even the record of these controversies perturbs the authors and 
defenders of this error. They do not hesitate to say and write that when 
two rabbis dispute among themselves, taking diametrically opposite 
positions from one another's, no one is at liberty to contradict either, 
because each had to speak in accordance with a tradition received from 
Mose, and the words of the one and of the other are equally words of 
the living God. So Mose must have spoken through two mouths and 
apparently the living God utters contradictory statements. 

13. Their chain of transmission contains falsehood, for they say: 
"Yehosua c transmitted to Pinhas, Pinhas to c Eli.” 6 Now it cannot be 
true that Pinhas transmitted it to c Eli, because c Eli did not succeed 
Pinhas. Rather did his son 'Abisua c succeed him, and Buqi succeeded 
'Abisua c , and c Uzi succeeded Buqi, as is found in the first book of 
Chronicles. This then agrees with the testimony of Josephus in the Fifth 
Book of the Antiquities where he says that 'Abi c ezer (this is 'Abisua c 
with a change in the vocable) succeeded Pinhas and Buzi, 'Abi c ezer; 
c Uzi succeeded Buzi and c Eli succeeded c Uzi. Thus, between c Eli and 
Pinhas there were three who held the office of [High] Priest, so that 
Pinhas could not have transmitted anything to c Eli whom he neither 
saw nor knew. But this difficulty they obviate by means of a fabulous 
tale, which claims that Pinhas lived for twelve generations up to the 
time of 'Eliyahu and 'Eliyahu was none other than Pinhas. We may refer 
to this story further on as a confirmation of our opinion, although it 
is more deserving of ridicule than of serious attention. 7 

14. If, as they say, the Tradition is necessary for the Law to be 
correctly understood and not be liable to misunderstanding and subjec¬ 
tive interpretation, then this Tradition should cover all matters dealt 
with in the Written Law. However, it turns out that just where the 
written Law could perhaps do with elucidation, Tradition is lacking, 
leaving room for dissidence and when it does offer explanations — and 
bad ones at that — there was really no need for them. So it avails them 


6 Cf. Maimonides, Misne Tora, Introduction. 

7 This legend of Elijah's longevity rankled with da Costa; cf. (1616).A.ll. Cf. 
(1624).2.6 and da Silva’s response in the latter's chapter 19. 



276 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


nothing to use this flawed argument and the intention of anyone who 
nevertheless uses it can easily be guessed. Or maybe the traditions were 
defective and scant in respect to that which most needed an explanation! 

Finally, it is to a written covenant's violation that the Law's 
comminatory passages apply and it is to despising the written cove¬ 
nant and to persistent deviation from it that all the evils and extended 
punishments are attributed. This is amply shown all through chapter 
26 of Leviticus, particularly in the verse: 

[...] in as much and in as much as they spumed My judgements and 
their soul abhorred My statutes [Lv. 26, 43]. 

And for the evils to cease and the benefits to accrue it is necessary 
to make amends and satisfy that part of the Law which is offended, 
as it says: 


If thou shalt hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep His 
commandments and His statutes which are written in the book of this 
Law [Dt. 30, 10]. 

Those written in the book of the Law, it says, not those written in 
the Talmud, as further appears from what follows: 

For this commandment which I command thee this day, is not hidden 
from thee [...] [Dt. 30, 11]. 

The charge that the Law is not being followed is made by the 
prophets when they complain of the thwarted covenant, alteration of 
judgements and statutes, sham Scripture and forgeries, observance of 
human rather than divine commands: 

How can you say, "We are wise and the Law of the Lord is with us?” 
Surely, the pen wrote in vain, falsification of the scribe. The Sages are 
put to shame, they were broken, they were trapped: lo, they have 
spurned the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is theirs? [Jer. 8, 8-9]. 

And in chapter 31 the same prophet says that because Yisra'el 
spurned the agreement written on paper, the Lord would make another 
with them written in the heart, so that they would not be able to thwart 
it with false doctrine. And Yehezqel says: 

And she has changed My judgements into impiety more than the nations, 
and My statutes more than the countries around her [...] [Ezek. 5, 6]. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


277 


Innumerable places may be found in confirmation of this truth, 
accessible to any who wishes to see them, unless his eyes be clouded. 

We have established sufficient foundations to support our position. 
Were we now to include the replies of our opponents and the grounds 
on which they base themselves plus our counter-replies, it would of 
course highlight much more strikingly the truth of our position. Since, 
however, one cannot fit onto one quire what was written on fifty folios, 
and since our purpose has changed in the meantime, we are jettisoning 
it all and restricting ourselves to those instances which prove the first 
and principal foundation of our proposition. 


Chapter 2 

Concerning the Punishment of One Who Maims his Neighbor 8 


In Leviticus it is stated as follows: 

And a man who gives a blemish in his neighbor: as he has done, so shall 
it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: like 
the blemish he gives in a man, so shall it be given in him [Lv. 24, 19-20]. 

Tradition makes its appearance and says that retaliation in kind 
is not to be inflicted upon one who thus maims but the only punish¬ 
ment to be exacted is a fine. We prove the falsehood of this tradition: 

1. The self-explanatory text of the Law allows of no ambiguity and 
cannot be applied to a pecuniary compensation, if the words 'like the 
blemish he gives in his fellow, so shall it be given in him’ are to be 
faithfully construed. What can it be that has to be given, but another 
mutilation? A mutilation is what he caused, and as we have seen in the 


8 This is a revision of (1616J.B.6 which consisted of seven arguments, whereas the 
present version has nine. The order is the same, but arguments 3, 6 and 9 are new. 
(1616).B.6.7 — a comparison between rabbinic and gentile legislation in respect to the 
talion — has fallen by the wayside. 



278 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


text just cited, it says: "so shall it be given in him”; meaning to say, 
the same mutilation shall be given in him. Mark the Hebrew word 
meaning "in him” which connotes the person of the offender; on his 
person, not on his property is the penalty to be imposed. The Law, not 
satisfied with generalities, manifests its intention more explicitly by 
adding specific examples: "eye for eye, tooth for tooth”. The examples 
would not be genuine if it were possible to give ten or twenty pence 
for the maiming of an eye, nor does the Law estimate the pecuniary 
value of eyes. Our understanding of this verse finds confirmation in 
another text, concerning one who gave false testimony: the Law orders 
that to the perjurer be done as he had conspired to have done to his 
brother: "soul for soul, eye for eye” [Dt. 19, 18-21]. And if it were true 
that en eye or a tooth could ever be compensated for with money, then 
"the evil that the false witness wished to bring about” could be compen¬ 
sated for with money. In that case the perjurer who conspires to inflict 
death — of whom it says "a life for a life” — could also be compensated 
for with money, something that even our opponents do not assert; rather 
do they acknowledge that the false witness intending to inflict death 
must die. Now if he must suffer the death which he wanted to cause 
by his false testimony, then also in the other examples enumerated in 
that selfsame Biblical text he shall suffer a corporal mutilation equal 
to the one he caused, in conformity with the Law's prescription. 9 

2. When two scuffled among themselves and one wounded the 
other without maiming him, the Law enjoins that the offender pay for 


9 Da Costa is trying to convey that since all agree that Dt. 19, 18-21 must be inter¬ 
preted literally as far as that one component that speaks of "a life for a life” is concerned, 
it follows that the other components ("an eye for an eye”, etc.) should by analogy be 
understood literally as well. In the case of the perjurer, by specifying "which he wanted 
to cause,” da Costa is careful, for once, to stay clear of controversy. The Pharisees ruled 
that the false witnesses are only put to death if the victims of their conspiracy had not 
yet been executed when their false testimony became exposed. If, however, they are found 
out only after the death penalty (caused by their perjury), had been effected, they 
apparently go free, because Dt. 19, 19 only prescribes death for the false witness who 
intended to cause death (Mishna, Makkot 1, 6), not for the one who actually caused death. 
This Pharisaic ruling was attacked on moral grounds by Christian anti-rabbinist writers, 
notably Sixtus of Siena in his Bibliotheca Sancta (1st ed., Venice 1566). Hakam Saul Levi 
Mortera — who upheld da Costa's excommunication in 1616 — daringly reinterpreted 
the Pharisaic ruling to mean that also in the case where the falsely accused person had 
been executed the false witness was to be put to death, but by a different form of capital 
punishment and on different grounds than if the accused person had not been executed. 
For this reinterpretation he was posthumously accused of heresy by his successor, hakam 
Jacob Sasportas (Ohel Yahacob, Amsterdam, 1737, Responsum 17). 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


279 


the medical treatment and compensate the loss of man-hours [Ex. 21, 
18-19]. Now if, where mutilation is concerned, it had been the intent 
of the Law to impose merely a pecuniary penalty, it could have 
expressed itself as it did in the case just quoted, adding perhaps a 
further pecuniary penalty such as 10 or 20 pence over and above the 
defrayal of the medical expenses and the interruption of work, which 
Ex. 21, 19 orders to be compensated for. Yet the fact is that the Law 
did not say this and referred instead to eyes and teeth, a purely corporal 
penalty which has nothing pecuniary about it. Monetary compensation 
is very unjust and incommensurate as regards a physical injury caused 
to a person, and totally foreign to the words and intent of the Law, which 
did not demand such a penalty. 

3. Whenever the Law wishes to impose a pecuniary penalty, 
whether fixed or discretionary, it spells it out, as can be seen in all the 
instances scattered throughout the Law. In the present case it makes 
no such provision. Neither should we, therefore, invent it. 

4. He who blinds a slave in one eye or knocks out his tooth is 
obliged to set him free for that eye or tooth. Liberty is worth more than 
any fine to which one could possibly be condemned for knocking out 
the tooth of a free man. Therefore a pecuniary penalty is inadequate 
to compensate free people for the loss of an eye or a tooth, just as it 
is not sufficient between a serf and his master. 

It is no use arguing that the master is commanded to manumit the 
servant on humanitarian grounds or on the grounds that disfranchised 
persons were legally incapable of ownership. 10 No, it is not because 
of the inhumanity, but because of the disfigurement that the master 
is commanded to give liberty "he shall set him free because of his eye" 
[Ex. 26, 26]); besides, he can whip him to the point of risking his life 
(an evil deed) and he does not set him free for all that, although it is 
a far greater inhumanity than knocking his tooth out with a well-aimed 
punch. And even supposing it were because of the inhumanity [that the 
servant is set free] (which is not the case), it is neither here nor there, 
so we shall waste no more time on it. The other reason is also worthless; 
the servant would indeed have been capable of receiving money and 
of using it as he pleased, had Scripture chosen to impose a monetary 
fine on the master. 


io Cf. Mishna, Kidushin 1, 3, but the information no doubt came to da Costa via 
Modena's reply to (1616).II. 6.3. 



280 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


5. Reason and equity demand that payment must be equal to the 
debt, or it would not be a just payment, because justice is founded on 
equity. Thus he who blinds his fellow in an eye owes an eye, since no 
assessment insuring commensurate monetary payment is possible: 
neither does the Law or reason put a price on eyes. Therefore it is only 
with another eye, which is retribution in kind, that restitution can be 
made, just as life is paid with another life, no monetary valuation of 
a life being possible. 

6. The divine Law is so upright, fair and just that it never demands 
less satisfaction than is due; rather is the culprit fined beyond his 
misdeed in many cases, so that the excess serve as a deterrent. One 
example is the fivefold restitution exacted from the man who steals an 
ox [and then either slaughters or sells it; cf. Ex. 21, 37], and there are 
many other examples where the Law, out of abhorrence for crime and 
sin, imposes execution by burning or stoning. Now, since this is the 
constant and unswerving way of the Law, it is hardly to be assumed 
that he who blinds his fellow in one eye, would be allowed to get away 
with such a disparate penalty as money to compensate for a perma¬ 
nent physical injury; and being purely physical, the destruction of an 
eye cannot be more equitably compensated than by the removal of the 
perpetrator's. 

7. The intention of the Law and its judgements was not merely 
to punish crimes with equity, but also to deter men from committing 
them by the threat of such physical punishment, and thus maintain 
society at peace and safe from harm. This end could not be achieved 
if the felon who deprived his fellow of a member could satisfy the law 
by paying a pecuniary fine as the only penalty; in the eyes of any vindic¬ 
tive person such a penalty would seem too trivial to dissuade him from 
carrying out his bad intention. Therefore it is necessary that the penalty 
be of a different order, and indeed of another order is the one that the 
Law imposes and needs must impose. 

8. The woman who seized a man's privy parts to deliver her 
husband from a stronger opponent, is punished by having her hand cut 
off, without any pity or consideration for her motivation [Dt. 25, 11-12]. 
Surely for a man to cut off another man's hand [Dt. 19, 21] is a much 
more heinous act, where there is neither pretext nor justification. 
Therefore there is no reason for the judgement of the Law in the latter 
case to be milder than in the former and to content itself with a light 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


281 


pecuniary penalty. So all told the reasonableness of the Law prevails 
against the falsehood of Tradition. 11 

9. We are not saying that if someone strove with another and 
rolling over the ground with him he disjointed one of his bones or made 
him a hunchback, that another hump should be made on the back of 
the perpetrator, because a lot of study would be needed to acquire this 
art of making people into hunchbacks. We are dealing with the eye, the 
hand, the cut-off finger; in other cases the verdict may be different. 


Chapter 3 

On the Judgement of a Man who Killed Another with Intent 12 


He that smiteth a man, and he dies, shall surely be put to death. And 
if one did not lie in wait, but God allowed him to fall in his hand; then 
I will appoint thee a place to which he shall flee. But if a man comes 
presumptuously upon his neighbor to slay him guilefully; from My altar 
thou shah take him to be executed [Ex. 21, 12-14]. 

In explanation of this law the Tradition says that he who kills a 
man with intent 13 is not executed, unless, while he was battling or 
struggling with his victim, he had been adjured and warned not to kill: 
a tradition which is inimical beyond description to peace and public 
tranquillity; a fomenter and generator of all evils. 


11 The Pharisees' consistent attempts to humanize the Law, marked by da Costa, 
could be perceived as a compelling vindication of their programme (cf. Josephus, Ant. 
13, 10: "[...] the Pharisees [...] are not apt to be severe in punishments.”). But since the 
only criterion for da Costa is scrupulous adherence to his literal (and often superficial) 
understanding of the Law, the Pharisees — far from being worthy of praise — stand doubly 
condemned a) for veering from (da Costa's reading of) the Law b) for setting up a stan¬ 
dard of their own whereby they judge (da Costa's reading of) that same infallible Law 
and decide its institutions to be in need of reform. 

12 Not included in 1616. 

13 Da Costa is misrepresenting the Talmud somewhat when he says "with intent.” 
The whole purpose of the warning which the Talmud prescribed "is only a means to 
distinguish between intentional and accidental homicide” (Sanhedrin 8b, 72b). Da Costa 
may have misunderstood the warning's purpose to differentiate premeditated killing from 
that perpetrated in self-defence. 



282 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


By the norms of divine Law, Natural Law and reason, it is not 
merely this performance — required by its inventors for the killer to 
be convicted — that is an obvious fiction, but the requirement to 
distinguish between killing in self-defence or out of malice is itself 
highly questionable. 14 For the Law does not explicitly exonerate any 
killer from the death sentence except the accidental homicide who acts 
without intent or forethought. 15 But all intentional homicide is very 
hateful and abhorrent to the Law and there is no room for leeway. Since 
the Law, then, provides no express exemption from the death penalty 
for a homicide who kills in self-defence, if we do concede him exonera¬ 
tion, it is only because common sense tells us that it is lawful for any 
man to defend himself against an assailant. 16 But what precisely are 
the criteria for "self-defence”? Is it necessary to receive with a sword 
the one who comes stick in hand? Is there not also "defence” when one 
retreats from and gets out of the way of another or is it necessary that 
all be determined by arms? Why should one resort to war-tactics at 
a time of peace, when one could avoid danger by less violent means? 
And minimum violence is after all what the Law wants. Indeed, even 
in the case of the thief who was tunneling into the house at night, where 
the Law exonerates the householder who killed him from the death 
penalty, it is only because the incident took place at night [Ex. 22, 1]. 
Had it happened by day, that householder would have been guilty of 
bloodshed, because it would have sufficed to shout out for help; the 
Law did not wish arms to be taken up against the thief, a form of 
resistance disproportionate to the force of the felon. Only at night were 
such extreme measures permitted because of the unfeasibility of more 
passive ones, and the householder's fear of being killed if the thief got 
inside and also because at night it is impossible to take the precautions 
which can be taken by day. Thus, as we said, one must carefully ponder 
how and when it is licit to have recourse to force of arms in self-defence 
with risk of great hurt to the enemy, and one must proceed in this case 
with great circumspection, as was well known to human rational law. 


14 In fact the Talmud rules that if it can be shown that the homicide overreacted, 
i.e., killed an attacker who could have been stopped by less violent means, then he — the 
homicide — faces capital charges. Cf. B.T. Sanhedrin 57a and b, 74a. 
is See however Dt. 19: 6, 11-13. 

16 It reads as if at this point da Costa is oblivious to Ex. 22, 1 for if he had it in 
mind it is inconceivable that he should have written "if we do concede exoneration, it 
is only because common sense [...].” When a few lines further he comes to deal with this 
verse, it is as if he had suddenly discovered it. His comment on it gives the impression 
of being a (hastily?) improvised afterthought. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


283 


The latter requires that the attacked person withdraw and entreat the 
aggressor to leave him alone. And if nothing avails, he can unsheathe 
his sword and defend himself, even though such defence leads to an 
offensive action. But the pious, or rather impious and venomous tra¬ 
ditions are grotesque. Therefore it is not surprising that they gain 
no consensus and that the Lord says of His people and of His city: 

And she has changed My judgements into impiety more than the nations, 
and My statutes more than the countries around her [...] [Ezek. 5, 6] 

and, for this very reason: 

Woe to the bloody city! I too will make a great pyre [...] [Ezek. 24, 9]. 17 


Chapter 4 

On the Case of the Ox which Gored a Man 18 


And when an ox gore a man or woman, and they die; then the ox shall 
surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the 
ox is innocent. And if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and its owner 
had been warned, yet he had not guarded it, and it killed a man or a 
woman; the ox shall be stoned, and also its owner shall die. If an expia¬ 
tion be imposed on him, then let him give for the ransom of his soul 
whatever is laid upon him [Ex. 21, 28-30]. 

As an explanation of this law the falsifiers declare that in no 
circumstances is the owner of the goring ox to be put to death, even 
if he had been warned a hundred times that he was to keep it in. The 
falsehood is manifest and is proven as follows: 

1. The Law expressly commands that the owner of the ox die, and 
only allows the commutation of the death penalty if the avenger of 


17 It is not clear if our author believes that modifications of Mosaic Law of the 
kind found in the Talmud were being introduced as early as the time of the prophet Ezekiel 
(6th century B.C.E.), or that these verses are simply predictive. Cf. da Costa's explana¬ 
tion infra, chapter 5, of certain verses in Dt. 32 in a similar vein. 

18 This corresponds to the fifth objection of 1616, which was apparently not 
divided into subsidiary arguments. 



284 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


blood is willing to accept redemption-money. Only if such terms are 
reached by the two parties is he exonerated from the death penalty, 
not otherwise. 

2. Had the Law wanted in this case to exempt the man from capital 
punishment, the Law itself would have imposed a fine and fixed the 
amount, just as it did in the case of the ox which killed a manservant 
or a maidservant [Ex. 21, 32]. Here the Law did not do so, but demanded 
the death sentence, to be commuted into a monetary penalty only with 
the consent of the victim's next of kin. So the original intent of the Law 
was not to require money; nor can money satisfy in this case except 
in the specified circumstances. 

3. If the owner of the ox were in no case to be executed, the Law 
would have no reason to make two provisions, one for the owner who 
had not been cautioned, and is acquitted; and another for the one who 
had been cautioned, who is condemned to death. 19 

4. He who causes an evil is regarded as the author and perpetrator 
of that same evil. (This is contained in the Law: see the judgement of 
the one who opened a pit and did not cover it and another's ox fell into 
it; he is made to pay the owner for his ox as if he had killed it with 
his own hands [Ex. 21, 33].) The owner of the ox, who had been cautioned 
to guard his animal and had failed to do so, was the cause of the death 
inflicted by the animal. Therefore, he is to be regarded as the author 
of that same death and to be judged accordingly. 

5. One has to lie in the bed one has made. The Law is just and 
does not allow of an accommodation which would prejudice the 
aggrieved party's rights without the acquiescence of that party. 
Therefore the owner of the killer ox, having been warned, is liable for 
the blood that his ox shed through his fault and cannot be pardoned 


19 At the outset it sounds as though this proof is to be derived from the simple 
fact that the Law separates the two cases and treats them discretely — not an unreasonable 
argument. But then Uriel makes his argument circular by attributing to Scripture the 
phrases "is acquitted” and "is condemned to death.” Had Ex. 21, 28-30 really contained 
such explicit pronouncements, there would have been no room for the rabbinical inter¬ 
pretation and no need for Uriel's proof. 



•URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


285 


without the consent of the other side. Only with that consent does the 
Law grant him the alternative of paying ransom-money, in view of his 
not being the immediate agent, which it otherwise would not concede, 
even if the aggrieved party were to pardon seven times. 20 


Chapter 5 

Concerning the Judgement 
of One who took Daughter and Mother to Wife, 
and the Profane Daughter of a Priest 21 


And if a man take a woman and her mother, it is wickedness: in fire 
they shall be burnt [ba'es yisrefu ], both he and they; that there be no 
wickedness among you [Lv. 20, 14]. And the daughter of any priest, if 
she begin to fornicate, she contaminates her father: in fire she shall 
be burnt [ba'es tisaref] [Lv. 21, 9], 

By way of explanation or corruption of these laws, Tradition says 
that in no way should perpetrators of such profanation be actually 
incinerated, because it is not right to deal with human beings this way, 
but a towel should be put around the neck, forcing the culprit’s mouth 
open. Then molten lead is dropped in, which they claim, is "burning 
in fire.” This tradition is false, as can be seen, and against divine justice, 
which it reproaches for being cruel. And under the cloak of misguided 
piety, it alters His judgements here and elsewhere. The falsity is proven: 

1. because the word "fire” [’es] which the Law uses, denotes and 
signifies real flames, kindled for consuming and devouring, and not any 
other thing, however blazing hot it may be. The sacrifice which was 
made to the Lord and which was consumed in fire Vise], took its name 


20 There appears to be little or no development in the five sections of this objec¬ 
tion, which continuously belabour the same point. 

21 This corresponds to the fourth objection of 1616, which was divided into three 
subsidiary arguments, expanded here to four. 



286 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


from the same Hebrew root as fire [*es ]. Moreover the verb "to bum" 
implies a burning done with fire. For this reason Mose said: 

I will now turn around, and see this great sight, why the bush is not 
burnt [Ex. 3, 3]. 22 

'Why does it not bum the way things usually bum, that is, being 
consumed?’ 

The traditionalists (another name would fit them better) 23 tell us 
a tall story: they say that the bodies of the sons of Aaron emerged intact 
from the divinely decreed burning. 24 Hence they derive that it is 
possible to burn a man without his body being consumed. 25 We 
answer them that if they have a way of consigning a person to flames 
which do not char the body, let them do just that and it will not make 
much difference to us whether the body is or is not consumed. However, 
if in order to leave the body intact they have to deflect the fire and apply 
it at a remove from the body, what has this to do with miracles which 
only God can perform? 

2. Further proof: the Law would be most imperfect and the charge 
could be made that it is misleading had it meant the words "to be burnt 
in fire" to express the requirement that the culprit swallow molten lead. 
In the same clear way as it elsewhere specifies "stoning with stones," 
it orders here "burning in fire," words that in fact have no connexion 
with lead, nor with scalding to death by means of lead. 

3. Furthermore, this curious application of lead is an extra¬ 
ordinary means of execution, bizarre and unnatural, and there is no 


22 Da Costa is evidently unaware that another Hebrew verb, yib c ar, is used here 
to signify burning, not the one which occurs in Lv. 20, 14 and 21,9; the two are not always 
synonymous. 

23 In the absence of a one-word Portuguese designation for ''traditionalists” in 
the broader sense, da Costa makes up a word traditores. When, in his snide parenthetical 
remark, he says "another name would fit them better”, he is no doubt punning with the 
Portuguese word traidores, meaning "traitors.” 

24 Cf. Lv. 10, 1-2; B.T. Sanhedrin 52a. 

25 Leon Modena’s reply to the 1616 formulation of da Costa's objection, as 
reported in magen vesina, includes this ' aggada . It derives from Sifra on Lv. 10, 5 and 
is cited by Rashi, ad. loc.. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


287 


trace of it elsewhere in the Law, nor does the Law prescribe outlandish 
means of execution, but rather the most common and ordinary ones. 26 

4. Further, the culprit could hardly have perished by reason of 
the heat intrinsic to the lead, but rather by reason of the towel with 
which they choked him and made him open his mouth, so that by the 
time the lead entered, he was already strangled. 27 It was all a decep¬ 
tion to make people believe that death was being inflicted by something 
heated in fire: and then they would point to the sons of Aaron remaining 
intact after they were consumed by divinely decreed fire. Against these 
falsehoods and against this false fire, says the Lord Himself: 

For a fire is kindled in My anger; it shall bum to the nethermost parts 
and shall destroy the earth and its produce [...] [Dt. 32, 22]. 28 


Chapter 6 

On the Redemption of Sold Property 29 


Leviticus 25, 26 legislates that the indigent person who had sold 
a part of his inheritance, thereafter coming into money, may redeem 
it again from the purchaser. Enters Tradition and says that he shall 
not be able to redeem with money obtained from the sale of another 
property, which was not as good as the first one he sold. But to redeem 
consecrated property he may use any money that comes his way. 30 

This tradition is totally false, tyrannical and an enemy of the 
poor. 31 The Law is entirely in favour of the seller and does not impose 


26 Execution by molten lead da Costa considers "outlandish and unnatural", 
whereas burning at the stake is for him "common and ordinary". This subjective 
categorization may have been influenced by his familiarity with the autos-da-fe. 

27 Cf. R. Yehuda's opinion in Mishna, Sanhedrin 7, 2. 

28 Da Costa is reading into Deuteronomy a most fanciful Midrash of his own inven¬ 
tion to the effect that Moses foresaw and condemned the introduction of the lead and 
towel. Cf. supra, note 17. 

29 Not included in 1616. 

30 Cf. Sifra, Behar, 5; Mishna, Arakin 9, 2. 

31 See, however, the justification of R. Sim c on in the Sifra cit. supra: "Why [the 
discrepancy]? Because unredeemed sold property reverts in any case to the original owner 



288 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


on him a condition concerning the provenance of money — an unheard 
of pretext. He could have redeemed his property with money from the 
poor-box, a fortiori with the proceeds from another property he sold 
(poor chap): 

But if he cannot redeem it [...] then the property shall go out in the 
jubilee-year and it shall return to its owner [Lv. 25, 28]. 

Thus, the whole Law favours the indigent seller, whereas the Tradi¬ 
tion, the enemy of the Law, on the other hand, favours the rich buyer. 

Their differentiation between sold and sanctified property, 
facilitating the redemption of the latter, also turns out to be false, 32 
because to redeem sanctified property the Law requires the original 
owner to redeem it at a price one fifth above its estimated value 
[Lv. 27, 19]. On the other hand, to redeem sold property, the Law does 
not require anything to be added to the value of the property. Thus, 
by the imposition of the fifth, the Law makes the redemption of 
consecrated property more rather than less onerous. That this is so 
in the case of consecrated property is made patent by the Law in 
many places. 


Chapter 7 

On the Judgement of the One who Stole an Ox 33 


If anyone should steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall 
pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep [Ex. 21, 37]. 

That is the Law. Against it Tradition teaches that if the thief 
consecrated the stolen ox and afterwards sold it, he shall not pay 
the owner more than two oxen: two abominable falsehoods. The first, 


in the jubilee year, whereas unredeemed consecrated property becomes definitively the 
property of the sanctuary in the jubilee year.” 

32 Da Costa’s insinuation that the "traditionalists” tampered with the 
Pentateuchal prescription concerning the redemption of sanctified property, is of course 
misleading. As a result of the rabbis' making the redemption of sold property more 
difficult, the redemption of consecrated property automatically became easier relative 
to the redemption of sold patrimony. They did not, however, modify the scriptural provi¬ 
sions for consecrated property. 

33 Not included in 1616. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


289 


saying that stolen goods can be consecrated unto the Lord, the other 
in reducing the sentence of the thief under his cloak of impiety. 34 

The first is false because one who is not the owner of property but 
has come by it through such unjust means as theft, cannot pass onto 
another property rights which are not his. And just as the vow of those 
who are not at liberty to bind themselves is invalid, except it afterwards 
be confirmed by the superior, in the same way the immoral offering 
of the pious thief, who was not entitled to consecrate it, is invalid ab 
initio . 35 Moreover, the Law prohibits the offering of an animal in 
which there is a blemish. And if one that has a broken leg is improper 
for offering, how much more so the one that was stolen. Similarly the 
Law prohibits the wages of a meretricious woman being brought to the 
Temple (Dt. 23, 19); the same Mosaic Law (cf. Lv. 5, 23) commands this 
devout thief to return the goods to their rightful owner. 

The second falsehood is proven because the owner of the ox never 
lost his rights and even if the thief's offering were valid, he still owes 
five oxen to the owner of the ox over and above the offering he owes 
the sanctuary, because he obligated himself twice, once by the theft 
and again by the offering. 

2. If Tradition's interpretation were valid, the Law's provision 
would be circumvented, to the benefit of the criminal, and thieves would 
be enabled to escape punishment by consecrating stolen property. What 
a preposterous idea! 

3. Either this consecrated ox belongs to the sanctuary, in which 
case the priest ought to be given two for one as a penalty for its having 
been sold after consecration; or, if it belongs to the original owner then 
it is he who must be compensated [fivefold]. But lo and behold, [twofold] 
restitution is what [the Traditionalists] would have the thief make to 
the original owner and nothing to the sanctuary. But then, of what 
validity is a consecration that avails the sanctuary nothing and whose 


34 Cf. Mishna, Baba Qama 7, 4. 

35 Nm. 30, 4-8 says that the vow of persons who are not at liberty to bind 
themselves is valid, unless disavowed by their superior; just the opposite of what da Costa 
claims. His comparison of stolen property with vows seems altogether inappropriate, 
for obvious reasons. It is strange that da Costa ignores Scripture's condemnation of those 
who offer stolen property to God (cf. Is., 61, 8; Mai. 1, 13). 



290 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


only effect is to alleviate the thief’s penalty? To what length will false 
tongues go towards favouring criminals and rejecting divine 
judgements? 36 


Chapter 8 

On the Use of Tefillin 37 


The use of tefillin is an abuse and an invention of men who 
misunderstood and misinterpreted the Law; as such it should be judged 
and rejected: 

1. Because the Law neither commanded these so-called tefillin to 
be made, nor indicated their shape or form; in fact, their very name 
is unknown to the Law and the Castilian version had no right to render 
the word totafot [’’frontlets”] by another Hebrew word [ tefillin ] which 
nowhere occurs in Scripture. 38 Had the Law wanted such things to be 
made, it would firstly have commanded them, then indicated their shape 
or form — as it did with sisit, commanding its making and explaining 
its colour and application [Nm. 15, 38]. This pattern is invariably 
followed throughout the Law, whenever specific practices are 
prescribed. 

2. The verses from which they derive the precept of tefillin had 
first to be misinterpreted by their commentators to yield the meaning 
they desired. The language of the Law in these verses is figurative, as 


36 Cf. B.T. Baba Qama 76a, ff. The Gemara seems to share some of our author's 
misgivings on this particular Mishnaic legislation. 

37 The objection to phylacteries was the first one in 1616. Cf. our Introduction, 
2 for a detailed comparison between the 1616 and the 1624 versions of this chapter and 
a demonstration of Leon Modena's input in the definitive version. 

38 The "Castilian version” referred to is the one printed at Ferrara in 1553 which 
renders each occurence of totafot by tefillin. Illogically, however, Ferrara renders the 
word ’ot, traditionally interpreted as "tefillin of the hand”, by the Castilian word serial. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


291 


in many other instances, and not literal. To be in harmony with the spirit 
of the lawgiver, it is necessary to understand allegorically: 

And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy 
heart [...] And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they 
shall be as frontlets between thy eyes [Dt. 6: 6, 8]. 

In these verses the intermediary of the Law, as a good and wise 
master, gives the people an emphatic command to remember God's love 
firstly in their hearts, repository of thoughts, next on their tongue and, 
finally — availing himself of a rhetorical manner of speech —, he tells 
them that they should remember these words as if they carried them 
for a sign on the hand and as a constant presence before their eyes, 
so that they might never forget. This is supported by another verse in 
the Law, which speaks similarly: 

And it shall be for thee as a sign upon thy hand, and for a memorial 
between thy eyes [...] [Ex. 13, 9]. 

And soon afterwards it changes its formulation and says: 

And it shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thy 
eyes [...] [Ex. 13, 16]. 

Thus, the Law uses "memorial” and "frontlets” interchangeably, 
which demonstrates that the words "for frontlets” mean "for a 
memorial,” and the words "for a memorial” hardly signify something 
written and enclosed in a box on one's forehead. Such allegorical and 
vivid forms of expression are often used in the Law. Thus it calls the 
people "stiffnecked,” to describe their great obstinacy. To better convey 
the image of oppression, it speaks of the Lord breaking the yoke which 
they bore on their necks in Egypt [cf. Lv. 26, 13]. The promised land's 
lushness and luxuriance is metaphorically expressed by: a land flowing 
with milk and honey. All these are allegories "allegory,” so that every 
one may understand, is when words say one thing and suggest another). 
In the same manner spake Selomo: 

Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind ye them upon thy necks; 
write them upon the table of thine heart [...] [Pr. 3,3]. 

And in the Song of Songs: 


Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm [...] [8, 6]. 



292 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


This means: 'remember me’: 

Upon the palms of my hands I have inscribed thee; thy walls constantly 
before me [Is. 49, 16]:. 

'You are ever present in my memory’. The adversaries hold that 
the sign is a concrete and visible thing and refuse to see that the 
language of the Law is figurative rather than literal. For even the word 
"seal,” which would normally denote a concrete and visible object, is 
here [S. of S. 8,6] not literally interpreted by anyone. 

3. Further proof: for a man to go the whole day with his arm 
strapped, imprisoned and encumbered, for all his natural and servile 
tasks, is improper, inconvenient and repugnant — and it would be 
nothing less to carry those bonds and impediments on one’s arm and 
head, especially as one would be required to wear them at all times. 
But the Law did not prescribe nor could it prescribe such improprieties, 
inconveniences and impossibilities. 

4. For if the precept of putting on tefillin were a precept of the 
Law, this precept would be obligatory not just all day, but every day, 
because the Law made no exceptions; this, however, is not the custom, 
and on sabbaths and holy days the people are exempt. Therefore the 
provision is either entirely man-made, or it was against the Law that 
the people were exempted (we shall not include here their absurd 
response 39 ), but it yet will be shown that the provision is in fact 
man-made. 

5. The regulations concerning the form and shape and the placing 
of the tefillin are all erroneous and misguided; they are not rules of 
the Law. It is also erroneous — though actually quite funny — to say 
that the leather of these cubes and encasements must be made of skin 
of an animal that may be eaten, because thus one complies with the 
precept: 


[...] that the Law of the Lord may be in thy mouth [...] [Ex. 13, 9]. 


39 A reference to Leon Modena's reply. Cf. our Introduction, 2, and notes 60 
and 61. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


293 


It is equally erroneous to say that the knot on the left arm must 
be on a spot that faces and can be placed on the heart, in compliance 
with the precept: 

And these words [...] shall be on thy heart [Dt. 6, 6]. 

The tenor of these and other foolish rules betray the origin of the 
tefillin and their ritual. 

6. The jews who are called Sadducees neither had nor have this 
custom, and the name Sadducee is as ancient as the name Pharisee 
(these names having come into use during the time of the Second Temple 
to identify them and distinguish them from each other). So the custom 
and testimony of the former confirm the truth which is derived from 
the Law and confound the contrary, superstitious, erroneous abuse, as 
does the Law itself. 


Chapter 9 

On the Configuration of the Circumcision 
and Abuses Concerning It 40 


The practice of peri c a is foreign to circumcision. This is proven by 
the following: 

1. The Hebrew verb used in the Law signifies cut all around, cut 
across, cut away. That is done by simple circumcision and it is not 
necessary to add peri c a, which is splitting. Therefore the peri c a which 
is carried out after the foreskin is already cut, is superfluous and irrele¬ 
vant, alien to the Law and to circumcision as such. 

2. The part of the foreskin which is redundant and useless and 
closes up the member, is totally disposed of by circumcision; and 


40 This corresponds to da Costa's second objection of 1616. While the number of 
subsidiary arguments is the same in both versions, consultation of magen ve-sina 
demonstrates that the material has been recast in the light of Modena's strictures. 



294 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


since the Law did not require or desire that more be opened or 
uncovered, to do so would be adding to the Law, which is tantamount 
to detracting from it. So peri c a, which is an addition to the Law's 
requirement, must be contrary to the Law. 

3. The Law does not prescribe peri c a, and the Sadducees do not 
practise it. So this custom of the Pharisees, not backed up by the Law 
or, rather, against the thrust of its words and at variance with Saddu- 
cean usage, should be condemned, along with other of their abuses, for 
reasons we have shown elsewhere. And were the erroneous and vain 
grounds on which they base themselves to be exposed, our charge would 
become even more understandable. 

The chair prescribed to seat the prophet 'Eliyahu at the circumci¬ 
sion and the rest of the preparation amount to nothing but impious 
superstition; all this is founded on a fable not worth writing down or 
wasting time with. 

Moreover it is a disgraceful and vile abuse to take the member in 
one's mouth in order to suck the blood. The excuse offered is, that after 
circumcision the member is no longer what it was. As for the anecdotes 
told to back up this excuse, I am unable to write them down, because 
the hand refuses to pick up the pen to do so. 41 Every bit of it is ugly 
superstitions, abominated by God. 


Chapter 10 
On the lulab 42 


And ye shall take for yourselves on the first day fruit of the beautiful 
tree, curvatures of palm trees [...] [Lv. 23, 40]. 

The Tradition which is provided to explain this law is false. It claims 
that the Law prescribes to take a citron, which is a beautiful fruit, as 
well as branches of certain other trees, and with these in hand to make 


41 The unrepeatable "anecdotes” may include Modena's citation of a "wise man” 
who said that a human being's mouth is more in need of being covered up than the private 
parts. 

42 Da Costa did not mention the palm and the citron in 1616, but seems to have 
been inspired to do so in 1624 by Modena's discussion of them in his reply to da Costa's 
1616 "General Objection” to the Oral Law. Cf. Introduction, 2. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


295 


movements and thrusts. 43 And God tells the one who plays such games 
and makes such inventions before Him without His authorization, to 
be gone from His sight, because He cannot abide it. 

The falsehood can be proven because it is apparent from the Law 
that the purpose of taking these branches is to use them for the 
construction of booths to dwell in, as it says: 

In booths ye shall dwell seven days [...] [Lv. 23, 42]. 

Saying that they should dwell in booths seven days implies that 
the branches were to be used in the construction of the very booths 
which they were to inhabit. Obviously they were not intended for games 
or brandishing. This is clearly shown where the people were 
commanded by c Ezra to go to the mountain and fetch branches of 
olive, pine, myrtle and other trees with which to make booths as was 
written in the Law [cf. Ne. 8, 15]. So what "was written” was understood 
to prescribe branches for the making of booths, not for the purpose 
of brandishing. And those very booths made out of cheerful greenery 
enhanced the joy of the festival. The branches, then, were intended for 
the construction of booths and not at all for carrying about or for 
practicing the art of fencing. 

2. Moreover, the Law does not say that one should take a beautiful 
fruit [for whatever purpose], but a fruit of the beautiful tree: thus it 
requires the tree to be beautiful — not the fruit. So it is vain that they 
tire themselves out looking for perfect citrons, in fulfilment of a non¬ 
existent text. 

The meaning of the Law is to take the branches of the trees and 
not the fruit without the branch, and when it said to take the fruit, it 
understood the entire branch to which the fruit is commonly attached. 
As when it says: 

And the woman saw that the tree was good for food [...] [Gn. 3, 6], 


43 The movements and thrusts were not attributed to the Law by the Mishna 
(Sukkah 3, 9) which simply records that at one time (probably in reference to Temple 
services) the lulab used to be shaken during the recitation of the hallel. It is significant 
that the Mishna employs the past tense when referring to this practice. It never makes 
the custom out to be a binding one, much less a Biblical requirement which — all agreed — 
was fulfilled by taking and holding the lulab. Nevertheless, shaking the lulab assumed 
symbolic (or magic?) import and became standard practice. 



296 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


it did not wish to say that the tree itself was good for food, but the fruit 
of the tree was good, i.e ., a synecdoche. In the same manner, what 
c Ezra literally said in the above-cited verse, was that they should take 
leaves [ c ale] of the olive-tree, leaves of the pine-tree and leaves of the 
myrtle-tree. Yet it does not mean that they should take just the leaves 
— for a fine house could be put together with leaves! — but rather 
branches which are in leaf. 

With good reason the olive-tree is called beautiful: 


A leafy olive-tree, fair with goodly fruit, the Lord called thy name [...] 
[Jer. 11, 16]. 


David compared himself to it, when he said: 

And I, like an olive-tree become green again in the house of God [...] 
[Ps. 52, 10]. 


Its supremacy was recognized by all the other trees in virtue of 
its solemn beauty, continuous verdure and the richness of its fruit 
[cf. Jdg. 9, 8]. c Ezra understood the Law to have spoken of that same 
olive-tree and it therefore heads the list of trees from which he ordered 
branches to be cut. 

Nor must it be thought that the booths can be assembled exclusively 
from the branches of four trees, in the same way as the adversaries 
make up their lulab -set exclusively of citron, palm, myrtle and willow. 
The Law employed more general words such as beautiful and thickly 
leaved tree, by which terms other trees may also be understood, 
e.g., pine and cypress, which are well suited for roofing, and also 
keep their greenness, qualities desirable in booths. As can be seen, 
c Ezra made use of other trees, all of which are subsumed under the 
words of the Law. 

By means of these branches the Law probably wished to remind 
us that those who have faith in the Lord and practise justice will never 
wilt nor dry up, and branches of such trees are very appropriate to these 
booths which represent the sovereign and eternal providence of the 
living God, Who, in the barren and inhospitable desert, supported His 
creatures who awaited their daily sustenance from His hand. For this 
reason the righteous are compared to a tree planted alongside the 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


297 


waters, which is generally verdant, whereas the godless are compared 
to dry straw: 

And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that shall bring 
forth its fruit in its season, and its leaf shall not fall [...] [Ps. 1, 3]. 44 . 

This then is what the booth decorated with the green branches 
of evergreens symbolizes, confirming man's confidence in his God. 

Nor let the phrase "for yourselves” confuse anybody. When the Law 
says: "And ye shall take for yourselves,” it is using one of those datives 
common in Hebrew, roughly equivalent to saying: 'And ye shall take’. 
Similarly: 


Take now thy son [...] and get thee into the land of Moriya [...] [Gn. 22, 2] 

simply means: 'and as for thee, go’ or 'get going’. And: 

Get you over the wadi Zered [...] [Dt. 2, 13] 

means no more than: 'You, cross over; get across the wadi Zered’: and 
this usage is ubiquitous. With the removal of other stumbling-blocks 
we shall not detain ourselves, for brevity's sake. 


Chapter 11 

On the Examination of Meat Which May be Eaten 45 


Tradition teaches that if an animal on being slaughtered is found 
to have certain defects or adhesions it is unfit for food and should be 
judged unclean, because with these symptoms it would have died within 
the year — a brief space of time —, sufficient reason to consider the 
animal as already dead before it was slaughtered. 46 This tradition is 


44 Da Costa follows the Ferrara Bible which translates lo yibbol "does not fall.” 

45 Not included in 1616. 

46 Cf. Mishna, Hullin 3. 



298 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


false, because the Law does not reckon unclean a living, fat, strong and 
sound animal, nor did it command such an animal to be inspected to 
see if it suffered from a diseased liver. It is the dead animal that the 
Law considers unclean. A fine state of affairs indeed, when for such 
slight ailments one has to throw the meat to the dogs (or little short 
of that), and to the Law is attributed the placing of obstacles and 
burdens which it never wanted to impose, and people are provided with 
new opportunities for guilt: for no man readily throws out his animal. 

2. Sacrificial animals were checked only for outward blemishes 
[cf. Lv. 22, 20-24]; once they were duly slaughtered, their flesh was fit 
for food (unless they come up with new follies) and since that is the 
law for consecrated meat, surely profane animals would not be subject 
to the stringencies of post-mortem examination! 

3. Nor does examining the inwards rule out the risk of eating the 
flesh of a deadly sick animal, 47 and thus it is a vain solution. (Whether 
an ox with a liver or lung disease is inevitably going to die within a 
year, I leave for the doctors to dispute.) 


Chapter 12 

On the Error of not Eating Meat With Milk 48 


A favourite proof of the traditionalists when arguing the indispen¬ 
sability of their Tradition for understanding the Law, is that without 
it one could not understand from the Law that it is forbidden to eat 
meat with milk. Thus, in order to vindicate the Tradition, they invent 
a precept, as is their wont. 

The Law says: 

Thou shalt not cook the kid in its mother's milk [Ex. 23, 19; 34,26; 

Dt. 14, 21]. 


47 In as much as not all diseases produce visible symptoms. 

48 Not included in 1616. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


299 


Who is so blind as not to see that it is an illusion or a delusion to 
derive from these words a prohibition to eat meat with milk? What is 
being dealt with here is a mother and her young: the Law forbids that 
the mother be asked for requisites with which to fry or cook her dead 
offspring for the purpose of subsequently eating it. Nor does it permit 
that self-same milk used for its sustenance and nutriment to become 
the instrument of its annihilation. This precept is similar to the one 
which says not to kill mother and young the same day [cf. Lv. 22, 28] 
and also to the one which says not to ensnare the mother with the young 
in the nest [Dt. 22, 6-7]. In much the same spirit it is laid down that the 
young remain with its mother for eight days and that before then it 
is not to be taken from her for a sacrifice [cf. Lv. 22, 27]. To kill the 
mother with her young is an extreme form of cruelty and destruction, 
"taking scalp and hair” as the saying goes; one has to be ferocious and 
inhuman to want to cook the young in the milk of its own mother. Thus 
said Ya c aqob when he feared the encounter with his brother: 

[...] lest he come and kill me — mother along with children [Gn. 32, 12]. 

The Law never intended to forbid one to partake of a slice of cheese 
after a meat meal: in fact this is what a proper meal should consist 
of. 49 Had the Law, where it says that a kid is not to be cooked in its 
mother's milk, really intended to prohibit the eating of dairy after meat, 
then another Scripture would be called for because we would have to 
conclude that the one we have is misleading and poorly written. 
However, since that is certainly not what we want to say, it would be 
more fitting to consider the Tradition a falsification, as indeed it is, 
and any usage based on it, ridiculous superstition; whereas the statutes 
of the Law retain all their force, from which one may derive excellent 
teaching, humanity and piety, all of which is not the case with its 
counterfeit opponent. 


49 Da Costa's subjectivity creeps in to determine what constitutes a "proper 
meal": cf. however, Gn. 18, 8. 



300 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Chapter 13 

On the Calculation of Months and Festivals 50 


In their manner of calculating months the Pharisees do not have 
a foot to stand on, because sometimes they start the month before the 
conjunction, at other times during the conjunction, and occasionally 
one or two days later, as anyone can see who regularly consults the 
lunar calendar. Now, since these methods of calculation cannot all be 
accurate, and one must be adopted, either in accordance with the 
conjunction or in accordance with the appearance of the moon, it 
perforce follows that if one calculation is accurate, the other is 
erroneous and, consequently, so are the dates of the holy days, which 
depend on it. 

At this point they usually come up with diversions: some concer¬ 
ning testimony that used to be given about sightings of the moon; others 
about couriers and about fires which were lit to advise those who lived 
too far away to have known otherwise when the month began. 51 Why 
waste time on all these contradictory tales, full of improprieties and 
impossibilities? The creators of these various categories of fables did 
not want the holy days to fall upon certain days that did not suit their 
book; and all because of this they modified the manner of counting the 
moons, sometimes anticipating, at other times prolonging them: this 
is the simple truth of the matter. Moreover, they themselves confess 
to this tampering and claim authority from the Law to do something 
so foreign and opposed to it: inasmuch as the Law marked the months 
and the days of the months and left nothing to arbitrariness. 52 

That the appearance of the moon need not be awaited in order to 
begin the month may be shown by the fact that on occasions when the 
moon fails to appear due to clouds, the new month will nonetheless 


50 This is a remake of da Costa's third objection in 1616, wherein he claimed that 
"the introduction of additional days of the festivals — eight instead of seven — is an altera¬ 
tion of and a sin against the Torah.” 

51 Cf. Mishna, Rosh Hashanah 2, 2-4. 

52 Da Costa does not cite the verse in the Law which specifies the length of the 
months; cf. perhaps Nm. 11, 19-20? 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


301 


begin according to the calculation. Moreover, its non-appearance does 
not change the fact of its being new, and consequently we should not 
take into account its actual appearance, but rather the time at which 
it is new. After all, to calculate the days everyone relies on the solar 
calendar and even if the sun does not appear the calculation of the days 
does not await its appearance. It runs its course in the sky, just like 
the moon. Parts of days are not counted as days, so if, for example, the 
moon were new at noon today, it is clear that today is not the first day 
of the month, but tomorrow: that is the correct calculation. In any case, 
whatever method is employed should be consistent, fixed and 
invariable. From the diversity of systems for calculating the months 
proceeds the addition made to the holy days, when two are celebrated 
instead of one and eight instead of seven, in spite of the prohibition 
in the Law against adding to or subtracting from its statutes. Thus, 
when the Law commands to offer a lamb every morning and afternoon, 
it means one lamb, not two. And if indeed it were a crime that deserved 
the death penalty to offer incense to the Lord with strange fire that He 
did not command [cf. Lv. 10, 1], why should it not be considered wicked 
to change the order and number of His sanctified days? Whatever 
anyone may say, Selomo did not celebrate the feast of Tabernacles for 
fourteen days. 53 The first seven, at the dedication of the altar, were 
voluntary; the last seven, of Tabernacles, as was commanded in the Law 
[2Chr. 7, 8-9]. And even if he had observed Tabernacles for fourteen days 
(which he did not), a case which might have arisen in peculiar 
circumstances cannot serve as a paradigm and certainly no law can be 
derived from it. The truth of the matter is that they, besides doubling 
the days of the festivals, also wished to modify the lunar months 
— heaping error upon error. 


53 Da Costa is objecting to an erroneous statement made by da Silva in his last 
chapter. Cf. our note 1 to that chapter. 



302 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Chapter 14 

Which Contains Some Examples They Adduce 
in Support of Tradition 54 


We have already said that to justify their Tradition, its inventors 
adduce examples by which they unwittingly demonstrate its falsehood 
(oh, what utter blindness!). We will cite just a few examples of their 
sham exposition. The rest may be judged by those which now follow: 

Where the Law says that he who enters another's vineyard may eat 
while there his fill of grapes, and he who enters a field may pluck 
ears of corn with his hand [cf. Dt. 23, 25-26], Tradition explains that 
this applies only to the day-labourer who entered the vineyard or the 
field in order to work with its owner, because if it were otherwise 
— so they claim — the poor would be given an unduly free hand and 
since the Law elsewhere forbids the muzzling of the threshing ox 
[cf. Dt. 25,4], by the end of the day there would be nothing left to harvest 
or to reap. 55 

This explanation is false, ridiculous and an enemy of the poor. 
It is false, because the Law is speaking of incursions which are made 
into the vineyards or fields when the owner is absent, and it prohibits 
those who may enter from taking grapes and sheaves home, under pain 
of punishment for theft, but it allows the eating of a few bunches 56 of 
grapes. Thus the Law favours the owner of the vineyard, but does give 
some allowance to the passer-by and the poor. 

To make the verse refer to reapers is absurd, because that would 
tantamount to saying that the Law prohibits the reapers from reaping 
with a sickle, but obliges them to pluck with their hands; and that a 
grape-gatherer may not take home in a basket a couple of bunches 


54 Not included in 1616. This chapter is in part a counter-reply to da Silva’s 
chapter 30 "Containing Some Proofs of Tradition and the Oral Law.” 

55 Cf. Sifre to Dt. 23, 25-26; B.T. Baba Metsia 87b, 89b. 

56 The expression "bunch of grapes” (cacho de uvas) which da Costa uses three 
times consecutively is not scriptural but it may be da Costa's way of quantifying the phrase 
in Dt. 23, 25: "as many grapes as you wish to satisfy your hunger.” 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


303 


even though the owner be present and sees him taking them. Finally, 
this explanation pretends that the Law imposes rules on vintagers 
and reapers. 

It is an enemy of poor people and more generally of all humanity, 
as one can see, for it does not allow one to eat a couple of bunches of 
grapes without being guilty of larceny and says (quite amusingly) that 
if permission were given to eat ears of corn in the field, in no time the 
whole crop would be devoured. So, this is the Tradition, and these are 
the kind of marvels it discloses. 

Here is a second example: The Law says that our ancestors entered 
Egypt numbering seventy souls, but the individuals listed total only 
sixty-nine. Here the Tradition supplies the missing soul, in the person 
of the daughter of Dina begotten of her violator. 57 

This tradition is false and indecent. The seventy souls may be found 
in the text, provided that Ya c aqob, who is the first one on the list, 
be included in the count, whereas the inventors would like to see him 
left out: 

And these are the names of the children of Yisra'el that came into Egypt: 

Ya c aqob and his sons [...] [Gn. 46, 8]. 

The first one to be counted is Ya c aqob, the head of all. With him 
we have Scripture's first total of thirty-three, whereas they say that 
they can find only thirty-two, because they have omitted Ya c aqob. 
For their argument they claim support from the verse which says: 

[...] all the souls of his sons and daughters were thirty and three 

[Gn. 46, 15]. 

And since Le'a had but one daughter, the plural form "daughters” 
had to indicate the existence of at least one granddaughter; which they 
came up with in the alleged person of his daughter's daughter. The proof 
is just as weak as the theory itself. It is not strange but quite usual to 
say of a man who has ten sons and only one daughter, that he has eleven 
sons and daughters. If, without taking much trouble, they wish to see 
for themselves, they will find an example of this usage in the same 
passage. Let them read above where it says Ya c aqob came down to 
Egypt, and all his seed with him, his daughters and the daughters of 


57 Cf. Targum Jonatan to Gn. 41, 45; Pirqe de R. 'Eli c ezer, 38. Cf. da Silva's 
chapter 30. 



304 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


his sons [Gn. 46, 7]. And yet among all the children of Ya c aqob there 
was but one daughter [who entered Egypt with him, namely Dina, and 
one granddaughter] 58 who entered Egypt with him, namely Serah, 
daughter of 'Aser, as may be seen in the same chapter. 

Third example: it is supposedly impossible to understand as it 
stands the verse which runs: 

[...] let no man go out of his place on the seventh day [Ex. 16, 29]. 

Some might understand "his place” to be his house, others might 
say that it means his city. But Tradition explains that "place” means 
the radius of two thousand ells beyond which one is not allowed to walk 
on sabbat. They are quite right to make the understanding of this verse 
so difficult, for after all there were jews who had said that a person 
may not budge on the sabbath from the position in which he finds 
himself when it begins, and whether he was lying down or seated or 
standing, that is how he must remain the whole day! 59 

However, this tradition is false and the verse has no need of any 
such fanciful explanations because it is crystal-clear. The Law does not 
prohibit a person from leaving his house on sabbat , nor does this verse 
furnish rules as to how many ells he may walk. It is saying that one 
should not violate the prohibition by going out on the seventh day to 
gather man, something which some of the people had just done, as can 
be seen from the preceding verse: 

And it came to pass on the seventh day that there went out some of 
the people to gather [...] [Ex. 16, 27]. 

So the meaning of the verse is clear and obvious and not by the 
furthest stretch of the imagination does it speak of the distance one 
may walk on the sabbath, nor does it relate to this subject, nor had the 
people undertaken a journey concerning which it was necessary to tell 
them not to walk any further. 

As to their claim that one may go no more than a certain number 
of ells on the sabbath, namely a total of four leagues, if it is true that 


58 We supply between brackets a number of words which must have dropped out 
of the Portuguese text due to haplography (chamada to chamada). 

59 Another example taken from da Silva's chapter 30, which does not, however, 
contain a reference to the "statue-people” (= ? certain Karaites). Da Costa's objection 
is well-taken: cf. our note 9 to da Silva's chapter 30. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


305 


performing a journey goes against the day's sanctity, prohibition of 
work and prescribed rest, then it is a great licence to allow a person 
to walk even four leagues on sabbat, and I do not know how covering 
so many leagues is a form of recreation. 60 If the purpose is to allow 
one to go and enjoy oneself at an estate in the country, four leagues 
seem a great distance. 61 But this discussion is out of place here, since 
the Law does not forbid ordinary walking, but forbids going out into 
the open desert to gather man. 

Fourth example: it would not be possible to know which words to 
write on the doorposts of the houses and the gates, had Tradition not 
taught that they begin with "Hear, Yisra'el” and end with "and on thy 
gates” [Dt. 6, 4-9]. 62 

In this example the tradition is in like manner false and childish 
in many parts. The words commanded to be written are the following: 

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all 
thy soul and with all thy might (Dt. 6, 5]. 

The rest that is added: 

And these words shall be [...] [Dt. 6, 6-9] 

is to recommend that these same words should be impressed upon our 
memory and to point out how this should be done, saying that they 
should be written on our gates. The directions: 

And thou shalt write them on the doorposts of thy house and on thy 
gates [Dt. 6, 9] 

are not part of what is to be written on the doorposts. 'What is it that 
I am supposed to write? — The words that I instruct you this day, 
namely: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God”.’ Besides being false, the 
tradition is ridiculous in saying that this text is to be put on the portals 
of kitchens and of all other rooms, because neither the kitchen-door, 


60 Another example of our author's subjectivity. 

61 Yet another subjective opinion. 

62 Cf. da Silva's chapter 30, where he overlooks a second passage (Dt. 11, 13-21) 
contained in the traditional mezuzah. Da Costa simply reproduces da Silva's error. 



306 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


nor the door of any room other than the door which gives onto the street 
is included in the commandment: 

And thou shalt write them on the doorposts of thy house [...]. 

The words that follow: "and on thy gates” refer to the gates of the 
city, which are public, because the Hebrew word sa c ar does not denote 
any and every door. The door of the house has its own designation and 
is never called sa c ar. The Law speaks of portals which lead to the 
street and of city gates, and it is upon those that it commands the 
required formula to be inscribed in large, legible and distinct letters; 63 
it does not command them to be rolled up, wrapped in paper and 
encased in a tube. 

We have submitted samplings enough to give an idea of the 
arguments our opponents adduce to prove the indispensability of their 
traditions for the understanding of the Law. It should be quite apparent 
that our opponents not only fail to elucidate the Law but, what is far 
worse, they invent, in the process, fables, fantasies, puerilities and 
inanities, each of which, in turn, spawns greater confusion and 
dissonance. 

We have supplied more than enough instances to prove and confirm 
the first Proposition that Tradition contradicts the written Law time 
after time. Were we now to address the counter-arguments of the tradi¬ 
tionalists, a big tome would result and a great many more errors 
would be exposed, to the dismay of any who would rather have them 
concealed than revealed; who do not desire to know, yea to see the truth; 
who would rather die in the desert like the old-time rebels, listening 
to the masses, though they be liars, than enter into the Promised 
Land, listening to the few who obey God and are truthful. So since it 
is futile to try to convince them, why tire ourselves out or indeed cause 
needless pain? Let us rather leave them on their path which they so 
contentedly follow. 

As for us, let us prepare to take and parry the blows of a wicked 
man who, though unable to cause real hurt, attempts to do so. At this 
point, for the uninformed reader, the background of the conflict we are 
alluding to must first be explained. 


63 The Talmud (B.T. Menahot 34a) contemplates this possibility quite seriously. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Preface 


It is now necessary for us to come to the defence of our own honour 
and to save it from the teeth of that evil beast whom we mentioned at 
the beginning of this book. Because he thought it would please the 
masses and it would gain him their applause, he did not hesitate to bite 
into our honour and see whether he could pierce it. He reckoned that 
once the first wound had been inflicted, it would be easier to inflict 
as many others as he liked. He wrote in the prologue of his treatise that 
he and those of his band were powerful enough to have us thrown out 
of a city where we had been living for some years. Certainly this is a 
most shameful utterance, which could have flowed only from the pen 
of a man who knows little of honour and whose malice impels him to 
make use of his natural vileness. 

It is customary, as you say, O wild and abominable monster! to 
banish pestiferous persons from society and accordingly banishment 
is the proper treatment for knaves of your ilk who want to fill and 
distend their belly at other peoples' expense; against the likes of you 
gates should be bolted, allowing no means of entry except you sneak 
in. But men of my quality never come up against bolted gates; they enter 
and go out whenever it pleases them, without mask or disguise, because 
they need fear no one. Now if, instead of expelling knaves, cities would 
expel good, honourable and honest people, not only would they forfeit 
the name of bodies politic, but they might be called with more reason 
dens of thieves, or at any rate, harbourers of thieves. You have become 
so blinded, poor wretch, that, though you are being trodden upon, laid 
under tribute and in servitude, you are not conscious of your status; 
you imagine yourself in possession of powers of which God has stripped 
you. First you tried to compel me to remain all my life in a place which 
I hated, which had nothing to offer me, where I lingered on through 
necessity, which I again and again wanted to quit; yet now you say it 
was because I refused to go of my own volition that you expelled me! 
Do you really believe, wretched soul, that you have the power to do so? 
Will you not understand that no matter how badly you wanted to see 
me leave, you could not make me and only attained your desire when 



308 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


I decided to satisfy it by putting my foot in the stirrups? Have you 
already forgotten how the authorities refused to renew the contract and 
ordered you to depart the city? need I remind you of the ignominies, 
affronts and insults which made it impossible for you to go out into 
the streets? Well, you have no doubt forgotten, because you have no 
shame; that storm passed and you are awaiting the next one. 1 

Further in your prologue you call me a hypocrite, and claim that 
under the pretense of virtues and modesty I try to ensnare people and 
to corrupt them. O Silva living in dense, sylvan darkness — dwelling- 
place of disgusting, venomous snakes and hideous basilisks — 
treacherous trouble-maker, blind mole who can only annoy and gnaw, 
what in me have you found that moves you to call me by a name which 
if it fits anybody, fits you yourself? Whatever my circumstances, I have 
never been able to dissemble, so that when you say that I ingratiated 
myself with you for a time by dissembling, you are lying as usual, for 
I have never said anything in public or in private which was at variance 
with my beliefs; it was, in fact, my very outspokenness which sparked 
your associates' desire to open an inquiry into my opinions. You say 
that at first you did not want to mention me by name in order to spare 
the honour of my blood. Even had you never named me, I would have 
identified myself and further honour would have accrued to this same 
blood, because among its scions is to be found a man of integrity, who 
freely speaks the truth, steadfastly adheres to it and who so profoundly 
trusts in God that by this trust alone he weathers all contrary winds 
and storms. 

Later on you say that at the sight of my words good jews should 
rend their garments as was customary when one heard the holy name 
of the Lord blasphemed, because I was saying — and this not the worst 
of my crimes — that all of Yisra'el practises a strange cult and that 
I want to destroy it, as Gid c on destroyed the altar of Ba c al. If, when 


l When the contract allowing the "Portuguese Nation" of Hamburg to live and 
practice judaism there came up for renewal in 1617, the Lutheran clergy opposed it. The 
city fathers, under the latter's pressure, declared themselves willing to renew only the 
residence provision, not the permission to practice judaism. On these terms the 
"Portuguese Nation’’ was unwilling to stay on. Although, as we know the contract was 
ultimately to be renewed, on April 13 1617 the "Deputies of the Nation’’ decreed that 
— were the contract not to be renewed — any jew remaining in Hamburg "on his own’’ 
would face ipso facto excommunication. The relevant document, discovered by Aron Leoni, 
will shortly appear in the Revue des Etudes Juives. Cf. our Introduction, note 17. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


309 


your 2 forefathers were worshipping a calf (oh, what turpitude!), it was 
blasphemy to call them idolaters, then let it be blasphemy now to say 
to you that you are doing what God disapproves, and to say that by 
practising a false cult, strange and foreign to what He asks of you, you 
are breaking and undoing His laws, while deluding yourselves that you 
are serving Him! O evil one, you so highly rate your own false reputa¬ 
tion and that of your friends as to say that to criticize your bad deeds 
is to blaspheme God! Garments should be rent, and justifiably so, 
O prevaricator! upon hearing the words you wrote in your scurrilous 
composition to the effect that human understanding has no limits and 
can grasp everything that is grasped by God and even the very essence 
of God; and, elsewhere in the selfsame text, that it can grasp all that 
is created and not created, as does God Himself, Whose mode of being 
you would thus limit. 

At this let garments be rent indeed, O noxious vermin! For by so 
exalting a creature that is finite and limited in all its operations, 
corporeal as well as intellectual, you go far in your foolishness. You 
raise this finite creature to a position where it would contemplate divine 
infinity and you wish it to find its way in that incomprehensible, 
tremendous abyss wherein dwells the divine essence, deeply hidden and 
far removed from us. It is also said to dwell in a cloud, so impenetrable 
and unattainable, that at the moment the eyes of one's understanding 
try to fix upon it, they immediately become veiled by that cloud and 
however much they want the veil to be removed, it can never again be 
lifted, thus rendering impossible another, more searching gaze. Let 
garments also be rent for your saying that it is not forbidden by the 
Law to consume human blood. Such a declaration, so insulting to His 
purity and perfection, can only have been uttered by some indecent 
savage, a cannibal living in the jungle, who is accustomed to such 
barbarities and who is as gross as you are, you who have such a poor 
understanding of the Law, as I shall yet show. 3 For these sayings of 
yours, and others far worse which your misshapen mouth incessantly 
emits, yea for these should garments be rent; but let no one rend his 
garments when he hears an evil man being called evil; when he hears 
it said that an idolater worshipped idols; when he hears an unjust, 


2 Da Costa's use of "your” rather than "our” should perhaps be seen as a 
rhetorical device. 

3 Cf. infra, chapter 9. 



310 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


perverse, superstitious man being told that he has left that straight and 
narrow path, which must needs be followed. 

Forsooth your attacks deserve a different kind of answer. Indeed 
there was a time when I was ready to let my hands do the talking 
— hands which I would have you know are capable of bridling you or 
any other beasts as foulmouthed. 4 Nevertheless I now submit my neck 
to the yoke of the divine Law and shall try instead to cure with words 
the festering wounds inflicted by your evil tongue. 

To get back to the story, this man got hold of a couple of quires 
of ours which deal with man's soul and, with some modifications, he 
incorporated their contents into a work of his own which also contained 
his reply. Reader, I beg you whether friend or foe, be a prudent and 
dispassionate judge. Remember that when a defendant praises himself 
in the course of counteracting false accusations, he is not boasting, but 
merely defending himself. Remember that when a defendant taxes his 
accuser with defects, it is not in order to revel in other people's failings, 
but to make known the kind of person his accuser is, which is also a 
defence tactic. Remember finally that vice attains the zenith of ugliness 
and is most abhorrent when poisonous, lying tongues attempt to soil 
honourable people. Then great force must be mustered to scour its ugly 
and repulsive stain. If you will remember all these things, you will not 
hold me in contempt when I praise myself. You will not say that I am 
finding fault for the sake of passing censure; you will not call me 
choleric, just because I show anger; but you will put everything into 
perspective and you will realize that I am acting in self-defence and 
that the holiest and best of mortals never tolerated false accusations 
of crimes and with all their might repelled them. Such was Ya c aqob's 
attitude when his father-in-law Laban falsely accused him. Mose, 
accused of wanting to raise himself above others by usurping the leader¬ 
ship, handled his accusers in a well-known manner. Thus, if you should 
notice that I am violently defending myself from a false accusation, do 
not be surprised, because my honour is at stake, which I most highly 
esteem, and I am repelling a vice imputed to me which I intensely loathe, 
and which could sully my honour. I rely on your discretion. 

Before tackling his reply, it is necessary to present what we wrote 
concerning the soul. 


4 Da Costa's menacing language, echoed sixteen years later in the Exemplar, if 
taken literally, may indicate that he was capable of perpetrating acts of violence upon 
those he perceived as betraying him. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Chapter 1 

What Constitutes the Soul? Who Engenders It? 
Is It Mortal or Immortal? 


As we are going to deal with the question of whether the soul is 
mortal or immortal, it is necessary to enquire in the first place just 
what constitutes the soul, especially since some ignoramuses speak of 
it as though it were a damsel housed in our bodies, and one even sees 
paintings depicting souls leaving purgatory. 1 But what we would call 
the human soul is that vital spirit which animates the individual, and 
which is contained in the blood. Human beings live, work and move 
by that spirit, which lasts them until nature or violent means extinguish 
it. There is no difference between the soul of an animal and the soul 
of a human being other than that man's soul is rational and the beast's 
is devoid of reason. As for the rest, as far as being born, living and dying 
is concerned, man and beast are exactly the same, as Selomo put it 
[cf. Eccl. 3, 19], and man has no pre-eminence over a beast as regards 
permanence, for all is vanity. Just as the soul of an animal is contained 
in its life-blood, as the Law tells us, so too is the human soul, which 
is vital spirit, also in the blood. 

Now that we know what a soul is, let us ask who engenders it and 
puts it into the body of a human being. We reply that it should be 
obvious that the human soul is engendered by natural procreation, just 
as the souls of animals are engendered by other animals of their own 
species. For instance, an elephant engenders another elephant equally 
wise; the fox, another fox, just as cunning; the horse, another horse, 
just as strong, obedient and brave. And a human being, similarly, 
engenders another human being possessing his own qualities, namely 
reason and intelligence, the very ones that distinguish him from brutes. 
About this matter there can be no doubt. Were it not so, procreation 


l Perhaps our author has in mind the pictorial representations — quite popular 
in Northern Portugal — of souls suffering in purgatory, called alminhas. 



312 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


of human beings would be imperfect, and at variance with the divine 
will which decreed that by means of the semen given to all His 
creatures, they would engender in their own likeness, multiply and be 
preserved. To man in particular it was said: 

And God blessed them, and God said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply 
and fill the earth’’ [...] [Gn. 5, 3]. 

And to show that man engenders a creature in all respects like unto 
himself, Scripture says: 

And 'Adam lived a hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his 
likeness, after his image [...] [Gn. 5, 3]. 

Rational 'Adam, lord on earth over the creatures, begat a son in 
his image and likeness, perfect in all respects, without external interven¬ 
tion in the act of procreation. Selomo says as much, when he declares 
that humans and animals are born the same way. 2 This allows of 
neither doubt nor contradiction: it is confirmed by Reason and the Law. 

Those who say that souls are beings separate from the body, which 
God created all at once and stored in a granary as it were, whence He 
orders them put into the bellies of pregnant women, do not deserve to 
be listened to. These follies, dreamt up by some of the vain gentiles and 
still followed today by the Pharisees, are really unworthy of further 
discussion. 

Others say that these beings are newly created by God in the belly 
of pregnant women: another extraordinary idea, foreign to reason and 
the Law. Those who invented this opinion did so because they would 
not accept that the human soul was mortal. They realized that if the 
soul were indeed begotten by another human being in the same natural 
way as the souls of animals are begotten by other animals, then it would 
have to be mortal. But since this opinion of theirs lacks any support 
from reason or the Law and is in fact no more than flimsy guesswork, 
why waste time on examining and refuting its purported foundations? 

To the question as to whether the soul of a human being is mortal 
or immortal we reply that, from the preceding, it seems evident that 
it must be mortal if it is contained in the blood, as we have already 
ascertained. It is in fact the vital spirit which dies and is extinguished 
before the human being can expire; indeed death would not set in if 


2 Cf. Eccl. 3, 19, where, however, there is no explicit reference to "birth.’ 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


313 


the vital spirit, i.e., the soul, which breathes life into man, had not 
departed. This obvious and palpable truth is manifest in infinite places 
in Scripture, which are irrefutable. 3 

[1.] The first proof is an argumentum ex silentio : the Law nowhere 
indicates that the human soul is immortal or that another life, whether 
of punishment or glory, awaits it. How inconceivable for the Law not 
to have mentioned such things! for God is not in the habit of concealing 
chastisement from man, but rather does He set it before him again and 
again, that its threat might dissuade him from evil. This can be seen 
throughout the Law. 4 

2. Further proof — God said to man: 

[...] on the day that thou eatest [of the tree], thou shalt surely die 
[Gn. 2, 17]. 

Thus man was created mortal, subject to death; otherwise, if his 
condition had been immortal, the body should have continued to exist, 
vivified by the spirit that God breathed into it. 5 God also said unto 
him: 

Dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return [Gn. 3, 19] 

whereby He made clear to man his latter end and that — his high rank 
notwithstanding — his days would be numbered and he would return 
to his earlier condition. 

3. Further proof — the patriarchs did not expect another life, nor 
did they reckon with its bliss, as can be inferred from their words. For 
when the Lord announced to 'Abraham that his reward would be great, 
he replied: 

Lord God, what wilt Thou give me, and I go childless [...] and this 
houseman will be my heir? [Gn. 15, 2-3] 


3 When the author says ‘’this obvious and palpable truth,” he cannot mean the 
theory of death in two stages which is non-scriptural. Besides, he later repudiates such 
a meaning after da Silva had exultantly read it into his words. 

4 Here as elsewhere the author dwells disproportionately on punishments while 
all but ignoring rewards. 

5 For the first time a notion enters here of immortality as a divine aspect of the 
soul, which could not have been undone by God, being divine itself. 



314 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


as if to say: 'I do not know, Lord, how this great prize is to be paid out 
to me, for I have no children who can be my heirs.’ Now, if ’Abraham 
had counted on another life, he would have expected the "great reward” 
to come at that later time, and he would not have exclusively alluded, 
as he did, to here-and-now blessings. These are the same blessings that 
Yishaq bestowed upon Ya c aqob, and are also the ones promised by the 
Law as reward for the righteous. Selomo, contemplating life’s tribula¬ 
tions, but not foreseeing another and better one in the hereafter, 
considered the stillborn more fortunate than all men [cf. Eccl. 4, 3; 6, 3]. 

4. Further proof — the Psalmist writes: 

Wilt Thou perchance perform wonders for the dead? or shall the lifeless 
arise and thank Thee? Shall Thy kindness perchance be told in the 
grave, Thy truth in perdition? Shall Thy wonders perchance be 
acknowledged in the darkness, and Thy righteousness in the land of 
forgetfulness? [Ps. 88, 11-13]. 

So, he denies that the dead are able to praise God and to rise for 
that purpose, for in their dwelling-place there is neither life, nor spirit. 
The grave is a land of perdition, a land of darkness and forgetfulness; 
only the living are able to praise God: 

The dead do not praise the Lord, nor those that go down into the silence. 
But as for us (we, the living), we will bless the Lord [...] [Ps. 115, 17-18] 

and for this reason the vanity and misery of such a feeble and short¬ 
lived creature are repeatedly put forward as a plea for His mercy and 
compassion: 

Behold, a few hand-breadths hast Thou made my days, and my dura¬ 
tion is as nothing before Thee: yea, as nought but vanity doth every 
man stand here [...] As but a shadow doth man walk about [...] Hear 
my prayer, O Lord, and my cry; take note of my tears, do not turn away 
Thine ear; for a stranger am I with Thee, a sojourner like all my fathers. 
Leave off from me (Thy punishment), that I may recover strength, before 
I go hence, and am no more [Ps. 39, 6-7; 13-14]. 

And, in another place: 

And He, being merciful, is forgiving of iniquity and does not destroy; 
yea, many a time He turns His anger away and awakens not all His 
fury. And He remembered that they are but flesh, a spirit that passeth 
and returneth not [Ps. 78, 38-39]. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


315 


And Iyob said: 

My days were swifter than a weaver's shuttle and came to an end in 
the absence of hope (for obtaining more). 0 remember that my life is 
but a wind; my eye will never again see happiness: The eye of him that 
saw me will behold me no more; Thy eyes upon me and I cease to be. 
The cloud vanished and passed away; so will he that goeth down to 
the grave not come up again. He will return no more to his house nor 
will his place recognize him any more [Job, 7, 6-10]. 

And further: 

I loathed it (with the sick man's aversion for food); I cannot live forever: 
leave me alone (scourge me not), for my days are but nought [Job 7, 16]. 

The same idea is expressed in chapter 14 and in countless other 
places [in Job] 6 , as well as throughout the psalms; all of them concur¬ 
ring that man's life is brief and that there is absolutely no expectation 
of receiving another after this one is over: 

For there is hope for the tree: if it be cut down, it may still sprout again, 
and its young shoot will not cease. If its root become old in the earth, 
and its trunk die in the dust, through the scent of water will it flourish, 
and produce boughs as if it were newly planted. But man dies and is 
powerless and when man departs, where is he? The waters run off from 
the sea and the river fails and dries up. So man goes to sleep and will 
not rise; till the heavens be no more they will not awake and will not 
be roused out of their sleep [Job 14, 7-12]. 

This is like saying: even if one could imagine the waters of the sea 
failing one day and torrential rivers drying up, it is still impossible to 
imagine man returning to life; not as long as the heavens subsist 
— that is to say: never will he awaken from the deadly sleep that awaits 
him. It is because this sleep is so deep and so long, that David said to 
the Lord: 


[...] enlighten my eyes, that I may not sleep the sleep of death: lest my 
enemy say: T have overcome him’ [...] [Ps. 13, 4-5]. 

[This is like saying:] 'You see, O Lord, how my enemy ceaselessly 
pursues me; I might easily fall prey to him. Enlighten my eyes that I 


6 The Talmud shows awareness of the implications of Job 7,9; cf. B.T. Baba Batra 
16a: "Raba said: This shows that Job denied resurrection.” 



316 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


might see where I tread and guard me from him lest I sleep the sleep 
of death; lest that sleep befall me from which one does not awaken; 
lest my enemy boast that he has prevailed over me.’ From all this it 
is evident that once he is dead, nothing remains of a man, nor does he 
ever return to life: 

For when the numbered years are passed, then must I travel a path 
from which there is no return [Job 16, 22]. 

[This is like saying:] The brief numbered days of my life will end 
and I shall go the way of all flesh along that road which is a one-way 
street.’ 

Those who claim that the human soul is immortal often respond 
to some of our arguments by excluding the body from immortality and 
establishing certain specious distinctions, which do not withstand 
examination. Thus they explain God's words: "thou art dust and to dust 
thou shalt return” [Gn. 3, 19] as being addressed to the body and not 
to the soul: a comic argument. In reality, God spoke to the human 
consisting of body and of the spirit of life, and it was to this total human 
being that He declared and made known that human years are 
numbered and that dust remains dust, never to be raised, thereby 
leaving no hope for immortality. This is why 'Adam has never again 
risen, having slept for so long, nor will he rise as long as the world and 
the skies above it subsist: that is, for all eternity. 

They, however, similarly misinterpret the Scriptural texts which 
say that the dead cannot praise God [cf. Ps. 115, 17], namely, that they 
cannot praise Him corporeally. But if that were the case, it would be 
false to say that the dead do not praise God, because a clean spirit, 
detached from the body, could praise Him better than one embodied. 
It would also be useless to present to God, by way of a plea for compas¬ 
sion, the argument concerning the brevity and vanity of man's life, if 
after death the soul, or spirit, survives to begin a new life — blissful, 
eternal and undisturbed. But it is precisely because this is not so that 
any afflicted person may say: 

Remember that my eye will not again see happiness [Job 7, 7]. 

When they get to verses such as: 


And He remembered that they are but flesh, a spirit that passeth and 
will not return [Ps. 78, 39] 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


317 


they interpret them to mean that the spirit will not return to enter that 
mortal body, but will return to enter an immortal body. They do not 
see, however, that if the spirit were to return to such a body, it would 
be an even fuller return, and then that return could never be designated 
by the words "will not return.” Their absurd distinctions and subter¬ 
fuges merely serve to avoid facing the overwhelming truth. Indeed, 
'Abraham said: 

Behold now, I have begun to speak unto the Lord, though I am dust 

and ashes [Gn. 18, 27]. 


Now, had 'Abraham's spirit been immortal and destined for an 
immortal body, then 'Abraham would not be dust and ashes, nor could 
he truthfully have described himself as such. Rather would he have been 
an immortal creature, since his spirit was immortal and, as far as the 
body is concerned, considering its relatively minor importance, he 
should not have borrowed its name to call himself dust, for things 
generally take their name from their dominant and most valuable 
component. The principal part of man is his spirit. 7 If it is immortal 
and a being unto itself, then man too is immortal and should not call 
himself dust, though his body be dust, especially if it is given him only 
for a limited span. In fact, realizing his transitory and corruptible state, 
'Abraham was doubly aware of it when he had to talk to God. Then, 
more than ever, he humbly acknowledges and confesses his unwor¬ 
thiness. 

In the same way are to be understood the words: 

[...] thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return [Gn. 3, 19]. 


These words could not have been used to describe the man of flesh 
and bones with whom God was speaking if his spirit were immortal, 
for then he would not become dust. Selomo well realized this when he 


7 Our author concedes that if humans were one part mortal and one part 
immortal, then it would be proper to treat of each separately — and so, the distinc¬ 
tions to which he objects are not so specious after all. He grants himself the licence 
to make such distinctions, when he says "things are called after their most valuable compo¬ 
nent, etc.” 



318 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


said that man has no pre-eminence over a beast as regards permanence, 
for all is vanity: 

The fate of the sons of men and the fate of the beasts, indeed the same 
fate befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have 
all one kind of spirit; so that the pre-eminence of man above the beast 
is nought; for all is vanity [Eccl. 3, 19]. 

The imaginative commentators, to explain away this verse, say that 
"all is vanity” does not include the soul! 8 How does this explanation 
of theirs fit in with all the rest of the verse, wherein is demonstrated 
that the human being is in no way more permanent than the beast, that 
man and beast have the same kind of spirit and that, consequently, all 
is vanity? 

Everything goeth unto one place: everything came from the dust, and 
everything returneth to the dust. Who knoweth that the spirit of the 
sons of man ascendeth upward and the spirit of the jument descendeth 
under the earth? [Eccl. 3, 20-21]. 

'When all is said and done, I came to the conclusion that there is 
nothing better for man than to enjoy the work of his hands and that 
this is his portion; nor does he derive any other profit from his 
existence’: 

And so did I perceive that there is nothing better than that a man should 
rejoice in his own works: for that is his portion [...] [Eccl. 3, 22]. 

'Man is not granted another life; with the one he now has he must 
make do. If he wishes it carefully kept, let him fear God and observe 
His commandments [cf. Eccl. 11, 13]; thus will he enjoy the fruit of his 
labour’. 


8 ’’Even man's excelling the beast is naught, for all is vanity, except only the pure 
soul which must hereafter give accounting before The glorious throne.” Cf. Book of Prayer 
According to the Custom of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews (Edited and Translated by 
David de Sola Pool), New York, 1977 7 , 8. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


319 


Chapter 2 

Containing the Arguments Adduced by Those who Say 
that the Human Soul is Immortal and that the Dead will be Revived, 
and Our Replies to Them 


Those who proclaim the immortality of the soul and resurrection 
are like people who want to climb a smooth wall without a ladder. Since 
there is nothing to grasp, every time they stick out a hand or think they 
have a foothold, they slip and fall. Their arguments, which now follow, 
will bear this out. 

1. Human beings were created in God's image. God is immortal. 
Therefore they must also be immortal, or they would not be created 
in God's image. 

2. The creation of man was not similar to that of other animals, 
for "God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” [Gn. 2, 7]. 
Therefore this breath is immortal. 

3. God said to 'Adam: "On the day that thou eatest of the tree thou 
shalt die [cf. Gn. 2, 17].” Had 'Adam not eaten, he would not have died. 
Therefore he must have been created immortal. 

4. Mose said to God: "If Thou wilt not forgive their sin, blot me 
out from Thy book which Thou hast written” [cf. Ex. 32, 32]. In that 
book are inscribed those who are granted eternal life and it is those 
who live in the "land of the living.” 

5. Semu'el came back to speak to Sa'ul [ISm. 28, 7-20]. Therefore 
the dead are aware and speak. 

6. 'Eliyahu was carried off to heaven and is alive. f Elisa c revived 
a corpse. 

7. In many psalms we read that the wicked will be destroyed from 
the face of the earth and the righteous will flourish. Therefore there 
must be another life in store for us, because in the present one the 



320 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


wicked flourish and the righteous suffer; the wicked are not punished 
nor are the just rewarded. 

8. It is written: 

For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to the grave; Thou wilt not suffer 
Thy pious to see the pit [Ps. 16, 10]. 

Similarly: 

How great is Thy goodness which Thou hast hidden for those that fear 
Thee [...] [Ps. 31, 20]. 

9. It is written: 

Thy dead shall live [...] 

and right after: 

[...] the earth shall cast out the departed [Is. 26, 19]. 

Similarly: 

[...] Behold, I open your graves and I will cause you to come up out of 
your graves, O My people [...] [Ezek. 37, 12]. 

Similarly: 

And I know that my Redeemer liveth and last shall stand on the dust. 
And after they crush this skin of mine will this be; from my flesh shall 
I behold God. Whom I shall myself behold and my eyes shall see and 
not a stranger; my reins grow weak within my bosom [Job 19, 25-27]. 

Daniyel also prophesied the resurrection of the dead. 

* 

To the first argument, viz. that man could not be described as 
created in God's image unless he were immortal, we reply that one has 
to be mad to imagine man to be made in God's image in every respect. 
Thus, while God is omnipotent, the creature made in His image 
obviously is not. Otherwise, if we were to consider man to be an image 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


321 


of God instead of a creature in His image, man would, of necessity, be 
God! But how can anything created be completely like the Creator 
Himself? To be simultaneously God and created is impossible. The 
greatest mystery is that even He, with all His power, could not make 
another His equal. Man is an image and likeness of God in so far as 
he is a shadow of His wisdom, but not Wisdom incarnate. On earth he 
has dominion over other beings and in this respect too he may be likened 
unto God, but his dominion is not identical with God's. Neither is he 
an image of God as regards immortality, for that is a divine, not a human 
attribute: 


Are Thy days perchance as the days of humans, Thy years as the days 
of a man? [Job 10, 5]. 

Iyob could not have said this if the spirit of man were immortal 
like God and if man were eternal. 

* 

Argument 2: "The creation of man was not similar to that of 
other animals, for "God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” 
[Gn. 2, 7]. Therefore this breath is immortal.” 

We reply that the argument is unconvincing and illogical, because 
it does not follow that the spirit which gave life to 'Adam's soulless body 
was an immortal one. Rather, the context shows that beasts and man 
have the same spirit, because at creation God said: 

Let the earth bring forth a living soul [...] [Gn. 1, 24] 

and at the time of man's creation, having already breathed into him 
the vital spirit, God said: 

[...] and man became a living soul [...] [Gn. 2, 7]. 

The same phrase [’’living soul”] being used in both places and, as 
Selomo says: 


[...] yea, they have all one kind of spirit [...] [Eccl. 3, 19] 



322 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


it was quite appropriate for God not to have shaped man out of clay 
together with the brute beasts, as well He might have done, so that 
rational man, partaker of Divine wisdom, who lords it over them should 
not be part of their herd. Thus shall he learn from the manner of his 
creation, to be different from them in his life-style. Further differences 
— and all for pedagogical purposes — may be found between the crea¬ 
tion of man and that of beasts. God created only one of his kind, rather 
than many, and gave him a wife whom he extracted from him. All these 
things teach him manners but have nothing to do with being mortal 
or immortal. 

If 'Adam had been alive when God breathed the "spirit of life” into 
him, we might have concluded that that spirit was separate and distinct 
from the animal spirit which already animated him. However, 'Adam 
did not stir before the vital spirit entered him. Therefore the vital spirit 
which entered 'Adam was the animal soul, and that identical animal 
soul was a rational soul. It all overlaps to such a degree that as soon 
as the animal soul leaves man, his faculties, known as the rational soul, 
take leave : ] : 

I will praise the Lord during my life; I will sing unto my God while 
I have any being [Ps. 146, 2] 

'for after I cease existing, I shall not be able to sing’. 

His spirit will depart, he will return to his earth; on that day his 
thoughts perish [Ps. 146, 4]. 

On the day of a man's death, all his fair words will end, he will no 
longer ratiocinate. As the Preacher says: 

Whatever thy hand findeth to do, that do with thy might; for there is 
no work, nor reasoning, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the nether world 
whither thou goest [Eccl. 9, 10]. 

On the day when man dies, everything ends with him. Mortal and 
finite was the spirit which God gave him: not immortal and infinite; 
therefore he dies; whereas if it were otherwise he would not die. 
As Iyob says: 

If He were to set his heart upon him, He would gather unto Himself 
his spirit and his breath. All flesh would die together and man would 
return unto dust [Job 34, 14-15]. 


1 Contrast the formulation of this sentence with the version quoted in da Silva's 
chapter 17. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


323 


Likewise of other animals: 

[...] Thou wilt gather up their spirit, they will expire and to their dust 
will they return [Ps. 104, 29]. 

When God gathers up and takes away the spirit, then man, a 
rational animal, just like any non-rational animal, is extinguished and 
comes to an end. In their campaign against this truth, some declare 
that one might then just as well be a dog as a man. These people deserve 
to be painfully stripped of the being which God gave them, since they 
have so little self-knowledge and self-respect, that they transform 
themselves from the dog's masters into his equals, just because God 
did not grant them eternal life — as if it were owing to them. A certain 
poet put it better in a romance:. 

Mortal did my mother bring me forth 
So that I could have died at once 
That which Heaven gave thee as a favour 
Do not claim it as thy right. 


* 


Argument 3: 

"[...] for on the day that thou eatest of the tree thou shalt surely die 
[cf. Gn. 2, 17]. 

Had 'Adam not eaten, he would not have died. Therefore he must 
have been created immortal.” 

We claim that this argument is invalid. The verse does not mean 
that were 'Adam to refrain from eating, he would never have to die; 
it rather means that if 'Adam would not eat, he would be spared that 
kind of death with which God was threatening him, but would die a 
natural death when his time came; in other words, he would not die 
in advance of his time due to his having infringed the precept. Now when 
the Law says: f He who commits such and such an action will surely 
die,’ does it mean that if he does not commit that action he will not 



324 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


have to die? To be sure he has to die, but he will not have to suffer the 
death which is the penalty for this transgression. 2 Yehezqel says: 

[...] if the sinner turns from his way, as I live, saith the Lord [...] he shall 
not die [cf. Ezek. 33; 11, 15]. 

'He will not die by the death with which he was threatened, nor 
shall I inflict death upon him before he has completed his life-span, 
nor will I inflict upon him the evil death deserved by sinners’. 

Had ’Adam not sinned, God would not have judged him. But judge 
him He did. And though He did not punish ’Adam straight away with 
the death penalty and prolonged his life out of considerations of mercy, 
certain penalties were imposed upon him. But even were we to concede 
that ’Adam had originally been granted immortality (an hypothesis not 
confirmed by the frailty of his constitution, which needed replenish¬ 
ment by food and drink) on condition that he obey the commandment 
laid upon him; at the moment when he transgressed it, he would 
have lost that immortality and, consequently, died. It rriust also be 
remembered that even if conditional immortality had originally been 
granted 'Adam, it would, of course, have been physical immortality. 
But he sinned, died and any immortality he might have had was gone. 
The truth of the matter is, however, that he was created mortal and 
corruptible. 


* 

Argument 4: "Mose said to God: 

[...] blot me out, I pray Thee, from Thy book which Thou hast written 
[Ex. 32, 32]. 

In this book are inscribed those who are given eternal life, and it 
is these who live in the 'land of the living’.” 


2 Da Costa (along with many translators and commentators) attaches no 
significance to the difference between the formula: mot tamut "thou shalt surely die”) 
of, e.g., Gn. 2, 17 and the common penalty formula mot yumat ("he shall be put to death”). 
This need not, however, weaken his argument, because in Scripture the form mot tamut 
occurs where mot yumat (or, in the second person, mot tumat) might have been expected. 
Cf. 1 Sm., 14: 39, 44; 22, 16. Incidentally, the "death” in Gn. 2, 17 is taken even by some 
ancient commentators to denote degradation, humiliation and punishments less than the 
ultimate one. Cf. Bereshit Rabba, ad loc.. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


325 


We claim that this all refers to our present life and not to some 
other one, which does not exist. Thus, Mose asked God to blot him out 
of His book, to wit, the book in which He inscribes the righteous whom 
He wishes to reward in this life, by assuring them that they will 
complete their days in peace and happiness. (We do not believe that 
God keeps some kind of an agenda, but consider the expression an 
anthropomorphism to convey the idea that God keeps an account with 
the world in the matter of reward and punishment.) From this book, 
then, Mose requested God to blot him out, as if to say: Tut me to death, 
cut me off before I complete my span. If I do not secure the pardon 
of this people, I do not wish to live’. He spoke in the same manner 
another time: 

And if Thou wilt thus deal with me, then slay me, I pray Thee, if 
I have found favour in Thine eyes, that I may not see my wretchedness 
[Nm. 11, 15]. 

'Once before I begged You, 0 Lord, to slay me, while I earnestly 
sought the weal of this people, because I did not wish to live to see evil 
come upon it. Now I beseech You anew, earnestly seeking my own 
welfare, because if I have to continually face such trials, life has no 
attraction for me’. Ribqa spoke to Yishaq in the same vein, saying that 
she was weary to death and that her life was not worth living if 
Ya c aqob married one of the local women [cf. Gn. 27, 46]. Mose, in 
asking God to blot him out of the book, certainly did not mean a book 
in which were inscribed those destined for an eternal and perfectly 
happy life (if such exists), for, had he meant that, he would be asking 
to be inscribed, instead, among the enemies of God who are condemned 
to eternal suffering: an insane and outrageous petition. 

"Land of the living” is the name of this world in which we exist 
here and now; "land of lives,” means a land in which there are many 
lives, because many live in it, and thus it is not the land of a single life. 
"Land of the dead” and "land of perdition” are names of the grave, as 
also "pit”, "silence”, "land of darkness and the shadow of death, where 
light does not enter”, as Iyob depicts it. The "land of lives” is often 
mentioned in Yehezqel [Ezek. 32, 23-32], and in many places in Psalms: 

I will walk before the face of the Lord in the land of lives [Ps. 116, 9]. 

'The Lord delivered my soul from death and from the hands of those 
who tried to take it from me. Therefore I shall live and walk before 
God in the land of lives. Consequently, I shall show my gratitude for 



326 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


the favours which I recognize as having come from His hand by offering 
a sacrifice in thanks for my well-being’: 

The cup of salvation will I lift up, and in the name of the Lord will I 
make an invocation. I will pay my vows to the Lord [...]. Precious in 
the eyes of the Lord is the death of his pious ones [Ps. 116, 13-15]. 

The Lord does not esteem the life of His righteous ones so little 
as to be indifferent to their death. Therefore He does not readily deliver 
them into the hands of the enemy. And I, for this reason, by way of 
thanksgiving’: 

[...] will pay my vows unto the Lord, yea, in the presence of all His people 
[Ps. 116, 14]. 

Herewith I have shown who are those that are inscribed in God’s 
book, and what the "land of lives” means. 

* 

Argument 5: "Semu'el came back to speak with Sa’ul [ISm. 28, 7-20]. 
Therefore the dead are aware and speak.” 

We reply that Semu'el did not come back to speak to Sa’ul, neither 
do the dead have any awareness, nor do they speak. That which is 
written in respect of this coming and speaking in the First Book of 
Semu'el is in complete contradiction with the teaching of the Law and 
those passages cited earlier which show that the dead have neither 
awareness nor the knowledge that belonged to their former selves. Now, 
since this passage of Scripture gainsays the true doctrine of the Law, 
it is of necessity apocryphal, like other passages forged and canonized 
by the Pharisees, but rejected by the Sadducees. As for us, we hold the 
Law to be our guide and principal foundation and by its light do we 
judge and separate the false from the true. For example, the Law 
commands us [Dt. 13, 2-6] not to believe the prophet or dreamer who 
by means of false miracles or the use of deceptive words wishes to 
mislead us into worshipping strange, unknown gods. Though it did not 
teach us how to identify their signs and portents, yet the Law commands 
us, who would be its faithful adherents, to despise them. However, for 
recognizing the false prophet who claims to speak in God’s name, it 
does provide a test [Dt. 18, 20-22]. If what he predicts does not come 
to pass, he is false. Thus forewarned, by taking refuge in the truth 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


327 


of the Law, we can guard ourselves against malicious people who 
incessantly invent and rake up mischief. And since it is an innovation 
to say that the dead speak and arise at the bidding of him who calls 
them up, a phenomenon foreign to the Law, which, indeed, condemned 
calling up the dead as pagan and vain, we, who firmly believe in the 
teaching and truth of the Law, must immediately eliminate and reject 
that scriptural text, or, rather, fable, which says that Semu'el came to 
talk to Sa'ul. 

Certainly anyone who takes a look at the story will immediately 
be struck by its unreasonableness. Who, for instance, lent Semu'el that 
mantle to wrap himself in, or who gave him a body and that white 
beard, which a few days before had been put under the ground. For 
when his spirit departed this world to go to its alleged destination, it 
supposedly went bare, leaving the body behind in the earth. Moreover, 
Semu'el said that Sa'ul would be with him the next day and thus Sa'ul, 
from whom God had turned away and become an enemy (as it says), 
would be assigned the same good place in the hereafter as Semu'el, 
His favourite. 3 

It is of course possible, if such deceptions and trickery to fool 
people and conjure up imaginary bodies do exist (I myself know nothing 
of such trickery), that this malevolent woman put one over on Sa'ul. 
However, to think that Semu'el's soul, newly provided with a body and 
clothing, came to talk to him, is not merely absurd: it is an erroneous, 
pagan and vain opinion. As is written in Yesa c yahu: 

[...] on behalf of the living (inquire) of the dead? [Is. 8, 19] 

as if it said: The living know more, are worth more, are better off than 
the dead; what can a dead person do for the living? so why in the world 
inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?’ And, as Selomo says: 

[...] for a living dog fareth better than a dead lion. For the living know 
that they have to die, and the dead know nothing, and have reward no 
more, yea, their memory is consigned to oblivion. Their love too, also 
their hatred, also their envy, have already perished; and they will never 
more have a portion in all that is done under the sun [Eccl. 9, 4-6]. 


3 The Rabbis of the Talmud inferred as much, when they interpreted Samuel's 
word c imi ("with me”: ISm. 28, 19) to mean c imi bimhisati ("with me in my domain”), 
i.e., "in paradise.” Cf. B.T. Erubin 53b. 



328 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


The dead person is finished and done for, and no longer takes 
account of what goes on in the world; so little account, as Iyob says, 
that the fate of his children is unknown to him: 

His children will acquire power, but he will not know of it; and they 
will become debased, but he will not care about them [Job 14, 21]. 

Now if that is the fate of the dead man, if his is the sleep from which 
there is no awakening, then shame on the myth-makers who peddle the 
dead, trying to persuade us that they appear again and act as advisors 
to the living. 


* 

Argument 6: "'Eliyahu was carried off to heaven and is alive; 
'Elisa c revived a corpse.” 

Even granting that these things are to be understood quite literally, 
by no means would they support the immortality of the soul; rather 
it would seem that if God wanted to keep 'Eliyahu alive in order to send 
him to preach to humanity, it was because if he were dead he could 
not return to the world, except God created him anew as He created 
the first man. He therefore extended his life (if it is true), but He did 
not make him immortal, for after having carried out his mission, he 
must die. (Were we to consult the Sadducees on this section of Scrip¬ 
ture, we would hear them say that this maintaining of 'Eliyahu alive 
seems hardly necessary, as there is no limit to God's power to commis¬ 
sion people of spirit every time He so desires, whom he uses as His 
messengers.) 

In the same way the dead boy whom 'Elisa c resuscitated by stret¬ 
ching himself upon him, putting his mouth to his mouth and his hands 
on his hands (a neat way to perform miracles and resuscitate the dead! 
God does not operate in this fashion), has no bearing on the question. 
This dead boy to whom God (if that is the way it happened) in His mercy 
gave a new spirit, died once again, and was not resuscitated to eternal 
life. So in what way does his revivification demonstrate immortality, 
which is what we are dealing with? 4 


4 Our author is apparently not aware of a tradition reported in the Talmud that 
the boy was not dead. Cf. B.T. Nidda 70b. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


329 


And yet there is much more to be said about the truth of these 
miracles which God never performed at any other time, nor was it His 
custom to kill people in order to revive them afterwards. In the Second 
Book of Samuel we read that David's servants expressed surprise at 
seeing him eat when he heard about the death of his son (he had been 
fasting until then). He explained: 

While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept, because I said: 'Who 
knoweth but that the Lord will be gracious to me, and the child will 
live?’ But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? Can I restore him 
to life again? I am going to him, but he will not return to me* [2Sm. 
12, 22-23]. 

Another miracle, which surely seems an irrelevant and unnecessary 
one — and God is not in the habit of performing such superfluous and 
almost childish miracles — is told of 'Elisa 0 . He went in the company 
of the sons of the prophets to cut wood by the Yarden and one of the 
axe-heads fell into the river. The man who had lost that axe-head, 
grieved and pained, exclaimed: 

Oh, Master! it was a borrowed one [2Kgs. 6,5]. 

Thereupon 'Elisa c thrust a stick into the water and the iron came 
up, so that the man who had lost it fished it out and took hold of it: 
that this axe-head story should be treated as a miracle is almost 
unbelievable. 

One should realize that quite a number of books which the 
Pharisees try to pass off as genuine are rejected by the Sadducees, who 
argue against their veracity. I cannot precisely indicate which ones, 
since I have never been in touch with the Sadducees. However, even 
without such contact, by the nature of the material, it is quite possible 
to discover which books, or which parts of them, should be rejected 
or received. And I dare say that because the Pharisees are so suspect 
or, rather, so devious in their ways, any part of Scripture that has 
nothing else going for it than their testimony, should be treated with 
caution. If, however, its authenticity were further impugned by other 
jews, then it deserves no confidence whatsoever. Those who love truth 
and are desirous of reaching it, should therefore try with all their might 
to find out what the Sadducees say about the canon of the Pharisees. 
One should make this effort so as not to have to live with and be fooled 
by the falsehoods contained in these books. By this means will that true 
knowledge be achieved, which is presently impeded by reliance on 
obscure and vain parts of Scripture. 



330 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


* 


Argument 7: "In many psalms we read that the wicked will be 
destroyed from the face of the earth and the righteous will flourish. 
Therefore it is necessary that there be another life, because in this one 
the wicked flourish and the righteous suffer; the wicked are not 
punished nor are the just rewarded.” 

We reply that indeed we read in the Psalms of the destruction of 
the wicked and the flourishing of the righteous, which is true doctrine, 
based on the Law itself. We deny, however, the corollary that the wicked 
are not punished in this life nor the just rewarded, because a saying 
such as this stands in direct contradiction to the truth and foundation 
of the Law, which proclaims over and over again: 'do good so that it 
go well with thee and with your children after thee’: 

[...] for I the Lord thy God, powerful, jealous, who visits the iniquity 
of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth 
of them that hate Me; And who show mercy unto the thousandth, 
to them that love Me and to those who keep My commandments 
[Ex. 20, 5-6]. 


In the present life, then, God requites evil-doing on the head of the 
perpetrator and on the head of his children and descendants; and he 
also recompenses the righteous, benefiting his seed practically unto 
eternity, as He recompensed 'Abraham and 'Abraham's seed, howsoever 
that seed provoked the divine ire many times and to such an extent, 
that it merited destruction or at least total repudiation. Nevertheless, 
being the seed of 'Abraham, God did not withdraw His mercy from it, 
as He did from other peoples: rather will He remember to restore it 
to its former glory, as it says respecting its ancestors and the covenant 
made with them: 

Know then that the Eternal thy God, He is God, the faithful God, Who 
keepeth the covenant and the mercy with those that love Him and those 
that keep His commandments to the thousandth generation. And that 
He repayeth those that hate Him to their face, to destroy him; He will 
not delay to him that hateth Him, He will repay him to his face [...] 
[Dt. 7, 9-10] 5 . 


5 Dt. 7, 9 refers to the lovers of God in the plural; Dt. 7, 10 refers to the hater of 
God in the singular. Da Costa follows the literalism of Pagnino's Latin and the Ferrara 
Spanish translations. 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


331 


To his face does God repay the wicked. He does not defer his 
punishment very long’. This is the teaching of the Law; this is the true 
teaching, in which we believe. But if we often see that the wicked 
flourish and do not receive their punishment straight away, or in the 
manner that we would have wanted, we must consider that our vision 
is too limited to grasp God's ordering of the world and the profound 
nature of the wisdom with which He governs it. God looks to the heart, 
sees and knows what each one deserves and in accordance with that 
He repays him. We, on the other hand, look to the exterior and judge 
as if we were blind. If God is slow to punish evil, it is because He does 
not desire to destroy man but rather wants him to repent: 

[...] for the iniquity of the Emorites is not full until now [Gn. 15, 16]. 

However, punishment is sure to overtake the unrepentant: 

If he turn not, He will whet His sword; He bendeth His bow and maketh 
it ready. And for him He prepareth the vessels of death; He will fashion 
His arrows against the persecutors [Ps. 7, 13-14]. 

To be sure, when punishment seems long in coming, we assume 
that the wicked get away with it. Yet we should know that the bliss 
of the wicked is not assured, but rather, if they persist in their 
wickedness, their downfall is certain: 

I have seen the wicked man rooted and sprouting branches like a green 
laurel. Yet he passed and lo he was no more; and I sought him but he 
could not be found [Ps. 37, 35-36]. 

This we see happening every day. God cuts off many a one who 
thought life was just beginning. He afflicts with various sicknesses and 
diseases. He sends hunger and poverty, subjects the high-born to 
humiliation and brings low prosperous houses so suddenly that one is 
amazed to see how men and their children whom one knew in better 
days have come down in the world. This then is what is meant by "the 
wicked passed”, this is what is meant by "seeking him and finding no 
sign of him.” In the same way great kingdoms have passed, which God 
at one time used as instruments for the chastisement of other peoples, 
and all of them received their deserts or will as yet receive them, for 
God lives, sees and judges the world each day, and nothing happens 
in the world that is not a result of His judgement, though often 
inscrutable to mankind. 



332 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Of the good and the righteous, on the other hand, it is said: 

I was young, I am also grown old; yet have I not seen the righteous 
forsaken, nor their seed seeking for bread [Ps. 37, 25]. 

So it is in this life that the righteous and the wicked receive their 
just deserts: 

Behold the righteous is recompensed on earth, how much more the 
wicked and the sinner [Pr. 11, 31]. 

Let no one be so stupid and mad as to believe otherwise and to draw 
so foolish a conclusion that is in contradiction with the truth and the 
essence of the Law. For were he to put it to the test, he would learn 
that truth from bitter experience, as befell a certain poet, foremost 
among those of his nation. Having apparently emulated the career of 
the wicked, thinking that for them there was no retribution, he was 
ultimately forced to confess: 

I have always seen the righteous suffer 
Terrible torments in this world 
And what is even more astonishing 
I have always seen the wicked bathe 
In a sea of satisfactions. 

Thinking that I would thus attain 
The bliss so poorly shared out 
I was wicked, but I was punished; 

And so it is only in my case 
That this world is set in order. 6 

Surely he is a madman who would believe that good invariably 
befalls the wicked. One day good may befall them, but at the end they 
will be destroyed. On the other hand, the righteous may one day suffer 
evil, either because God wishes to test them, or because there is no man 
so righteous that he does not deserve some punishment. However, at 
the end they will have peace. Let then man — in whose judgement that 
which in God's eyes is evil so often seems good — lower somewhat the 


6 This decima by Luis de Camoes appeared for the first time in the second edition 
of his Rimas (Lisbon, 1598). 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


333 


wings of presumption with which he would fain usurp the place of God 
and make himself judge of all the earth. When he witnesses events 
whose meaning he does not grasp, let him leave it to God, the righteous 
judge, who governs the world with wisdom so far superior to that of 
humans that, exert themselves as they may, they cannot fathom it. 
As Selomo says: 

Then did I see the whole work of God, that a man is not able to find 
out the work that is done under the sun, in as much as though a man 
were to toil to seek for it, he would yet not find it: and even if the 
wise man were to say that he wishes to know, he would not be able 
to find it [Eccl. 8, 17]. 

Let man merely be aware that God is judge of the earth, and impar¬ 
tially rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked thereof. So let 
the one who wonders about the righteous Hebei perishing at the hands 
of the perfidious Kayin, consider that this death may have been the 
result of his father's sin and learn to fear God who extends the punish¬ 
ment of the sinner to his children. This last point really deserves a long 
discourse, but we must now break off and come to an end, for what 
we have so far demonstrated is more than sufficient to annul the 
opposing argument, which is spurious and against the true teaching 
of the Law. 


* 


Argument 8: "It is written: 

For Thou wilt not leave my soul in the grave; nor wilt Thou suffer Thy 
righteous one to see the pit [Ps. 16, 10]. 

Similarly: 

Oh how great is Thy goodness which Thou hast hidden for those that 
fear Thee [...] [Ps. 31, 20].” 

We reply that all this is irrelevant. The meaning of the first verse 
is as follows: 'You will not allow my soul to fall into the hands of my 
enemies nor that I should go down to the grave through their machina¬ 
tions.’ David, rejoicing at having God on his side to protect him, is saying 
that, sheltered by Him, he sleeps tranquilly, without fear. It does not 



334 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


mean that after his death God will take his soul out of the grave, because 
this contradicts what follows: 

Thou wilt not allow Thy righteous one to see the pit [Ps. 16, 10]. 

Nor does it mean that he would never "see the pit”, because 
everyone ends up "seeing the pit”: no mortal can escape it (as it says 
elsewhere: 

What man shall live and not see death? shall he deliver his soul from 
the power of the pit? [Ps. 89, 49]) 

but rather does it [Ps. 16, 10] mean that God would not leave his soul 
in mortal danger, nor consent that he should go down to the pit through 
the wicked intrigues of those who were hounding him, as we explained 
above. David reassures himself in this way elsewhere in the Psalms, too. 

As to the second verse: 

Oh! How great is Thy goodness that Thou hast hidden for those that 
fear Thee [...] [Ps. 31, 20] 

it is self-explanatory when one takes into account what follows: 

[... that] Thou hast wrought for those that trust in Thee before the sons 
of men. 

So we see that it is here below, before the sons of men, that God 
works this goodness. And just what is this goodness? 

Thou wilt conceal them in the secret of Thy presence from the insur¬ 
rections of man: Thou wilt conceal them in a tent from the strife of 
tongues [Ps. 31, 21]. 

As if to say: 'You shall be my protection and refuge from the 
persecution of men, their betrayals and wickednesses’. He was giving 
thanks to the Lord for having shielded him from these evils. These 
favours are such as take place in the presence of the sons of men here 
on earth. Favours of another kind we are not going to dream up, and 
if we should have dreams, dreams they will remain. 

* 


To argument 9, concerning what is written in Yesa c yahu: 


Thy dead shall live [...] [Is. 26, 19] 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


335 


we reply that the prophet does not speak of the true dead, of those who 
ended the natural course of life, nor does he say that these would rise. 
No, the dead of which he speaks are the people of Yisra'el scattered 
throughout the lands, and reckoned as if they were dead: so dead, that 
no one believes that they will once again become a people, but rather 
that they will always remain prostrate, dejected, vile, withered and 
dried up. That is precisely the way Yehezqel describes them, where 
he explains that the dry bones are the House of Yisra'el, who say: 

[...] Dried are our bones and lost is our hope; we are quite cut off 
[Ezek. 37, 11]. 

And, following the same thought, it says: 

[...] Behold I will open your graves and I will cause you to come up out 
of your graves [...] [Ezek. 37, 12]. 

It does not say that veritable corpses will be pulled out of the 
graves, but that He would gather the living, who were as good as dead, 
from all the lands where they had been dispersed — which were like 
graves as far as they were concerned — and that He would bring them 
back to the land of Yisra'el. The two prophetical passages are analogous 
and both are to be understood parabolically, not literally. And to make 
our point even clearer we shall cite an earlier verse in the same chapter 
of Yesa c yahu. From start to finish this chapter speaks of the 
ingathering of Yisra’el and shows how God chastises other peoples 
differently from the way He chastizes Yisra'el. In respect of the others 
it says: 

The dead will not live, the departed will not rise; therefore hast Thou 
visited and destroyed them, and made to perish every memorial of them 
[Is. 26, 14], 

meaning to say that the Lord castigates these peoples and changes them 
to such a degree that they do not return to their erstwhile state. Yisra'el, 
however. He chastizes in another manner: 

Thou hast done more for the nation, 0 Lord, Thou hast done more for 
the nation; Thou hast glorified Thyself; which Thou hast extended to 
the ends of the earth [cf. Is. 26, 15], 7 


7 Neither the Hebrew text nor the Ferrara Spanish translation have the words 
"which” or "to.” 



336 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


which means: 'You have heaped up, O Lord, You have multiplied Your 
miracles for this people and thus You have glorified Yourself: people 
whom You had cast away unto the ends of the earth’. In other words, 
after all the evils have passed, after long periods of hope: 

Thy dead shall live [...] [Is. 26, 19]. 

'Your wounded, Your tormented and Your beaten down, reckoned 
on earth as if they were dead — will live. The earth will eject them and 
they will sprout from it as if they were grass’. It is exactly like what 
we read in the next chapter: 

In future generations shall Ya c aqob yet take root; Yisra'el shall bud 

and blossom [...] [Is. 27, 6]. 

These similitudes and figurative ways of speaking should be 
understood with sound common sense, and not, injudiciously, taken 
at face value. 

Then comes the place in Iyob: 

And I know that my Redeemer liveth and at last 8 shall stand on the 

dust [...] [Job 19, 25]. 

We reply that the meaning given this verse by many interpreters 
is very far from the one intended by Iyob, who was simply trying to 
express his confidence that God would yet raise him from the place 
where he lay, enfeebled and ulcerated. Once back on his feet he intends 
to offer sacrifices and praises as had once been his wont: 

I know that my Redeemer liveth [...]. 

'I know that the One in whom I have trust is the living God, who 
has the power to redeem me, deliver me and raise me up, to remove 
from me the anguish, tribulations and misery which beset me’ (every 
time God delivers men from evils, tribulations and dangers, He is called 
God the Redeemer, as for instance when He redeemed the people from 
Egyptian slavery: this is unquestionably so), 

[...] and at last it shall stand on the dust [...] 


8 Da Costa now translates the Hebrew word ve-aharon : e por derradeiro ("and at 
last”), whereas in his earlier citation of this verse he translated it simply e derradeiro 
("and last”). 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


337 


and that when my anguish will come to an end, my skin, that is to say, 
my body (the skin may be a synecdoche for the whole body in the book 
of Iyob) will stand, will walk and will move about: 

and after they crush this skin of mine [...] [Job 19, 26] 

after the infirmity, sickness and wounds with which I am afflicted 

(Thereupon Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord and he 
smote Iyob with a sore inflammation from the sole of his foot unto the 
crown of his head [Job 2, 7]), 

after the vermin bred in them or which came out of the dust on which 
I am seated 

(My flesh became covered with worms and clods of dust; my skin is 
torn and become undone [Job 7, 5]) 

cease mistreating this skin and flesh, then: 

[...] from my flesh shall I behold God [Job 19, 26], 

then, mended, convalesced and restored to my former strength and 
soundness, shall I see God. I shall rise early and betake myself to the 
place where I used to bring Him sacrifices 

(and he rose up early in the morning and brought burnt-offerings 
[Job 1, 5]), 

and thus shall I see God: 

Whom I shall behold to me [dative used in Hebrew: whom I shall myself 
behold] [...] and not a stranger [...] [Job 19, 27]. 

It will not be another in my stead; I myself will do the behold¬ 
ing. Be undeceived, 0 you friends who persecute, calumniate and insult 
me — saying that it is because of my wickedness that I am in this 
parlous state 

(these ten times have ye made me ashamed; do ye not blush when ye 
show yourselves so insensitive to me? [Job 19, 3]) 



338 


’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


— be undeceived and know that even though I have told you and you 
see that: 

To my skin and to my flesh my bone doth cleave and I escaped with 
the skin of my teeth (with the skin cleaving to my teeth) [Job 19, 20], 

nevertheless I have strong hopes — or rather I know for certain — that 
I shall see myself raised up from this state and brought back to my 
former one; I will be on my feet; I shall see my flesh restored and I shall 
give thanks to God and offer Him new sacrifices'. 

All this Iyob was to see fulfilled in himself after God removed His 
scourge, as we read at the end of the book. He himself went to see God 
and brought a burnt-offering on behalf of his friends. 9 Truly, this 
should be sufficient to disabuse those who fool themselves by inter¬ 
preting this passage in a manner different from the many others in the 
same book of Iyob which clearly deny the raising up of the dead, as 
we have already shown. 

Some people misinterpret the expression "at last” to mean "at the 
last Judgement at the end of the world” — which is all in their 
imagination — as if it could not simply mean an end, either an end 
which may be around the corner, or one a few days away, all accor¬ 
ding to the context. Let us consider, for instance, the following verse: 

Who hath fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers 
knew not, in order to afflict thee and in order to prove thee, to do thee 
good at thy last [Dt. 8, 16]. 

Here "thy last” means at the end of the 40 years of wandering in 
the desert before entering the Promised Land. No doubt Iyob was 
speaking of the last phase and end of his illness, not of the last day of 
the world, which will never end. This is shown clearly by the final verses 
of the book: 

And the Lord blessed the last of Job more than his beginning, and he 
had fourteen thousand sheep [...] [Job 42, 12]. 

This was the "last” of which Iyob was speaking and the one he 
hoped for. 


9 Cf. Job 42, 8-9. In the Masoretic text it is the friends who are told to bring a 
burnt-offering. However, in the Septuagint, it is Job who is told to make the offering 
on their behalf, which version da Costa evidently follows in this instance. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


339 


Moreover, because it says: 

[...] and from my flesh shall I behold God [Job 19, 26], 

they dream that man really and physically is to see God in heaven, after 
having been given a new body. But "to see God” means to worship Him 
in the Temple or in any place devoted to divine service: 

[...] and My face shall not be seen in vain [Ex. 23, 15; 34, 20]. 

'You shall not come before Me to the place of My dwelling without 
bringing an offering’. It is in this way that Iyob saw God when, restored 
to health, he went to bring Him burnt-offerings 9 : the way they inter¬ 
pret this "seeing” is madness. 

And now, finally, we must deal with what it says in the book entitled 
Daniyel: 

And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some 
to everlasting life and some to disgrace, to everlasting contempt [...] 
[Dan. 12, 2] 

and elsewhere: 

But thou go to the end and rest and be in thy lot at the end of the days 
[Dan. 12, 13]. 

This book of Daniyel is rejected by the jews called Sadducees and 
this fact alone should suffice to deprive a book of its credibility. (As 
we have said, very little faith can be placed in the unconfirmed 
testimony of the Pharisees, seeing how these men made it their business 
— or their madness — to change words, modify, twist and misinterpret 
Scripture in order to confirm the confused figments of their imagina¬ 
tion.) In this case, the book’s content reveals it to be nothing but 
a product of Pharisaic ideology, contrary to that of the Law. It 
masquerades as prophecy, the better to fool the people by lending 
authority to its authors’ false teaching. 

The lack of truth of the adduced passages may be demonstrated 
as follows: the first one says that many will be resuscitated, but not 
all. Now, if resurrection were intrinsic to the human condition, the 
whole of humanity would be destined for it; some, albeit, resurrected 
to enjoy felicity, others to face humiliation — depending on their 
deserts. Seeing, however, that the Pharisees preach and claim that 



340 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


resurrection is not universal but only selective and that souls are not 
all immortal but one yeah and one nay, it becomes clear that the above- 
cited scriptural passage was fabricated to accommodate their erroneous 
doctrine. 

The same may be seen in the last-cited verse, in as much as it says 
that Daniyel would enjoy his lot and be in it at the end of days. For 
the Pharisees teach that when the masiah comes, the risen dead will 
each of them possess his inheritance in the land of Yisra'el. To prove 
this utter insanity they resort to fabricating scripture. 

There are other things in the book of Daniyel which bear a Pharisaic 
hallmark. Here, for the first time, do we find angels called by names 
of which previously we had not been informed, either by the Law or 
by other books. In fact, the whole presentation and style reveals it to 
be a fabrication. But if one finds it hard to believe that anyone would 
have dared to produce pseudepigraphic writings, let him ask himself 
who wrote the book of Judith and invented her story? Who the third 
and fourth c Ezra? Who the Book of Wisdom and many others needless 
to enumerate? In fact we even have to include the book of'Ester in this 
list. In short, there is no lack of sham authors, prophets and visionaries: 
for human malice knows no bounds. Warnings were given us in the Law, 
intended to make us wary. He who cleaves to its truth will escape all 
error. Let me just reiterate that the novel teaching found in the book 
of Daniyel runs contrary to the teaching of the Law and contrary to 
all books which follow in the Law's footsteps. Therefore we shall not 
and need not pay it the slightest heed. Having now shown that man is 
every bit mortal (there was really little need to demonstrate what is 
so obvious), and that he is not endowed with another life to live, let 
us examine the difficulties and evils which ensue from the erroneous 
contrary position. 


Chapter 3 

Containing the Errors and Evils that Ensue 
from Believing the Soul to be Immortal 


Since one absurdity leads to another and one error gives birth to 
many, this erroneous opinion or, rather, delusion concerning the immor¬ 
tality of the soul has such numerous offspring that it will not be easy 
to exhibit them all. The Pharisees who only selectively grant immor- 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


341 


tality — eternal bliss and also everlasting suffering —, in order not to 
condemn to damnation too readily, claimed and continue to claim that 
if, while in the body, a soul commits actions meriting damnation 
(or omits to perform a commandment), God may send it back to earth 
and house it in another body and again in a third body, until it has 
earned (as they say) the bread that it is to eat in heaven. 1 They also 
invented a place called purgatory where the souls of those who were 
middling good could purge their faults. From there, withal, God may 
exile them time and again to the bodies of animals (animals with 
bachelors' degrees no doubt), and this too for their purgation. It is 
precisely because a human soul may find itself in a cow that, when it 
is to be slaughtered, care must be taken to minimize its pain. (That 
animals should be slaughtered with compassion is proper and 
righteous, but not for that reason.) If none of these remedies should 
suffice, and the soul is so wicked that it deserves damnation, God sends 
it to suffer in the place of eternal torments. That is its final destination 
and thus is transformed the glory which that soul had once possessed 
in heaven where it dwelled, as they say, under the Divine throne. What 
a stupid soul, not to have clung on and to have allowed itself to be cast 
into this world! 

Since the Law is silent on all such matters, one wonders just how 
these people came by their information, and on what these interpreters 
of Divine justice base their mystifications which inspire amazement and 
fear in ordinary folk who listen to them open-mouthed. 

Out of the above-mentioned errors others develop in quick succes¬ 
sion such as the reciting of prayers and supplications for the dead; the 
making of offerings to God on their behalf to facilitate their release 
from the torments of a fictional purgatory; countless silly superstitions 
practiced at funerals. All these things are very offensive to the true Law 
and divine worship which neither use nor need such frivolities but 
rather do reject and abhor them. 

Mischief is the inevitable corollary of error, and this unfounded 
belief in immortality is no exception, in so far as it too has created havoc 
among its adherents. For in the expectation of greater goods or greater 
evils in the hereafter, they despise the goods and the evils of this world. 
Some of them even went so far as to create new orders and rules of 
life, imposing on their bodies self-mortification, not demanded by the 


l Belief in metempsychosis was adopted by the kabbalists; its earliest jewish 
proponents may have been the Karaites. For this belief they were vigorously attacked 
by Saadia Gaon, who called it lunacy. Cf. 'emunot vede c ot, 6. 



342 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Law and not adopted by its righteous followers. They dwelt in the 
wilderness, ate badly and dressed worse and, maddest of all, esteemed 
celibacy a holier and more religious state than that of legitimate 
matrimony, divinely and naturally instituted. Others stupidly offered 
their souls to cruel martyrdom. Vainly and without cause these wasteful 
and foolish people surrendered and discarded that life so highly valued 
by the ancient patriarchs. Crazed as a result of the false hopes they 
entertain and the vows which they take without consulting God, they 
do not know what they are looking for; and, being unappreciative of 
God's gift to them of the blessings of this life, they hardly merit leave 
to enjoy them. 

No good whatsoever can result from this false opinion. When they 
say that without the expectation of greater goods or evils in the 
hereafter, people would not fear God but would all do as they pleased, 
they are talking nonsense. The dread of the gallows which the thief sees 
before his eyes exceeds the fear of hell which he cannot see; threatened 
with punishment which is doubtful or far-off, he simply replies that 
one has to eat just the same. With here-and-now punishments things 
are quite different. If someone about to commit murder were to be 
reminded that murderers are beheaded, surely he would desist. And 
if he be hardened to the extent that the thought of immediate execu¬ 
tion holds no terror for him, the fear of a contingent punishment, from 
which escape may always seem possible, would be even less of a deter¬ 
rent. Similarly the divine judgements and chastisements in this world 
are much more effective than threats concerning a future, unknown life. 

A soldier in war, where loss is more certain than gain, serves a lord 
for a pay so scanty that he can barely live on it. Will a man not better 
serve his own God, Whom he is obliged to serve, and Who pays 
munificently a service so easy that it seems hardly any service at all? 

And now Yisra’el, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to 
fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways [...] [Dt. 10, 12]. 

Ways of righteousness, ways of justice, gentle and easy ways, which 
those who are not fascinated by torture love and desire; and on which 
only the perverse and wicked stumble: 

How have Thy words become sweet to my palate; more than honey to 
my mouth [Ps. 119, 103]. 

For a time I found myself in the same darkness in which I know 
many to dwell, perplexed and assailed by doubts produced by false 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


343 


writings and the teachings of monstrous men. Certainty eluded me and 
out of reach seemed the means to attain that eternal life, which I had 
been indoctrinated to believe in as the ultimate goal of human existence. 
That eternal life I then supposed to be a matter of supreme importance 
— yet one about which I was subsequently to discover that the Law is 
completely silent. After I set out to scorn and overcome the fear of 
men — having been impelled by the love of truth and the fear of God 
in Whom I exclusively put my faith — my fortune took a completely 
new turn, because God removed from me the doubts that had been 
afflicting me, putting me firmly on the way of truth. Healthy and 
wealthy was 1 2 and with Providence watching over me in a way that 
makes those least inclined to do so acknowledge it in spite of 
themselves. 

So I live contentedly, realizing what my end shall be and cognizant 
of the conditions of the Law which God enjoined me to observe. I do 
not get carried away constructing castles in the air any more than 
I deceive myself with false hopes of dreamt up bliss. Nor do I sadden 
or perturb myself with the dread and apprehension of awful torments. 
For the human existence which God granted me and the life he lent me 
I render thanks, considering that before I existed He owed me nothing, 
but He chose to make me a human being and not an animal. 

In truth, the most distressful and wretched time in my life was 
when I believed that eternal bliss or misery awaited man and that accor¬ 
ding to his works he would earn that bliss or that misery. I would surely 
have rejected without any hesitation that agonizing insecurity and been 
satisfied to live with the promise of a lesser reward, had I but known 
at that time of another option. No doubt God allows such opinions to 
exist for the torment of the conscience of those who forsake Him and 
His constant truth. 


2 The words "healthy and wealthy was I” are our attempt to represent the text's 
meus bens e minha saude foi guardada, which is an obvious corruption. Da Silva's version 
supplies after meus bens, the words pullaram e cregeram a vista dos homes ("everyone 
could see my wordly goods increasing by leaps and bounds”). Cf. our Introduction, 3. 



344 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Chapter 4 

Wherein We Begin to Reply to the First Chapter 
of the Adversary 


Taking as his point of departure what we have written up to here 
concerning the human soul, our adversary proceeds to construct 
counter-arguments, intending to demonstrate the soul's immortality. 
In his first chapter-head he promises to discuss the creation and perfec¬ 
tions of man. But instead, he immediately begins to rave, soaring 
upward to the angels and their creation and to the invisible world. Then 
he attempts to corroborate his fancies by citing various authorities. 
For the existence of more than one world he draws from Yesa c yahu: 

Trust ye in the Lord unto eternity, for in Yah the Lord, fortress of the 
worlds [Is. 26, 4]. 

The Hebrew has c olamim, plural of c olam, which means "age, 
time, era,” but not "world” in the sense of "the face of the earth.” The 
word for that is tevel, not c olam. Thus the verse does not speak of this 
visible world and even less does it speak of many worlds. It invites men 
to put their confidence in God, for He is the fortress, the bliss and the 
healing of all times, ages and generations. 

He goes on to say that because this world, here below, could not 
be maintained, as the Philosopher says, without access to the celestial 
one — and to establish communication between them was as difficult 
as to join earth to the heavens — God created man a composite of both, 
so that he might serve as link and bond between earth and heaven. This 
amounts to saying that man sustains the world and keeps it going, and 
that without man it would collapse. Moreover, he separates earth from 
heaven and of each element he makes a world, whereas the heavens 
and the earth together make up the world, and this word "world” 
subsumes the whole creation. 

If I had to reply to everything this man says and to expose all his 
foolishness, reams of paper would be filled. Therefore, skipping over 
his irrelevancies, I shall comment only on those passages in which he 
attacks truths which I have demonstrated, for I am not obliged to under¬ 
take the drudgery of correcting all his errors. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


345 


Chapter 5 

Concerns What He Says About the Philosophers' Opinions of the Soul 
and Re-establishes the Truth 


This fine fellow — whose intent is to distort the truth — claims that 
among the philosophers of the gentiles he found none who declared the 
rational soul mortal, except Epicurus, a man who allegedly denied all 
divine providence and allowed himself to be dominated by vice. The 
truth of the matter is, however, that the most learned of them, hailing 
from the most civilized nations, have always maintained that the soul 
is mortal, and deemed the opposite theory either a barbarous day¬ 
dream, or a doctrine fed to the masses for ulterior motives. 

Pomponius Mela, describing the customs of the peoples of Thrace, 
says that the Getas were ferocious and very ready to die and that was 
because of certain opinions they held. For some of them believed that 
souls would return; some believed that, even though souls did not 
actually return, they were not extinguished, but passed on to a better 
existence; others among them believed that souls did in fact cease to 
exist, but that non-existence was better than existence. These latter were 
accustomed to weep at births and to celebrate when someone died, 
while for their widows it was considered honourable to commit suicide 
upon their husbands' death and so die and be buried with their 
husbands. The same author, describing superstitions of some tribes in 
France that practiced human sacrifice, says that the Druids, or wise 
men of these peoples, claimed knowledge of the heavens and the stars 
and, installing themselves in pits, secretly taught many things to the 
most noble among them. One of the things they taught, to boost morale 
in times of war, was that souls are eternal and that another life awaited 
those who fell. This shows how the learned historians mocked those 
barbarous peoples who entertained these errors. It also shows that they 
perceived the real motive of those self-proclaimed wise men for teaching 
this doctrine, which has taken hold of so many people and which caused 
and causes them to commit endless follies. Using the same creed — so 
Josephus tells us — the Pharisees rallied the masses around them. 1 


l Cf. Josephus: Ant., 18, 1, 3: "The Pharisees [...] also believed that the souls have 
an immortal vigour in them and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments 



346 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


But why should we tire ourselves with ferreting out the allegations 
of philosophers who spoke without the benefit of Scripture and why 
should we make use of what they said, since we have in our close prox¬ 
imity jews and Christians who, whether they like it or not, end up admit¬ 
ting that the soul is mortal? Let us begin with the jews. What does a 
jew really mean when he says that the end of gentiles is death and that 
only he lives on? 2 Is he not implying thereby that the human soul of 
man is mortal by its very nature ? 3 Now let us hear the Christian. All 
followers of the doctrine of Luther, and other Christians as well, say 
that the soul receives its being by means of generative power . 4 Having 
conceded this, they have virtually admitted the soul's mortality. Thus, 
the Christian is really obliged by the evidence of nature and by the force 
of the divine word to admit something he does not want to. The result 
is that when Christians dispute about the soul, it is all invective and 
name-calling. What happens in these debates is that those who have 
realized the implications of the belief in a soul that is generated by the 
father, and are alarmed by them, pour insults and vilification upon 
those who proclaim that the soul indeed receives its being through 


according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; the latter are to be detained 
in an everlasting prison but the former shall have power to revive and live again; on 
account of which doctrine they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people.” Clearly 
in this passage Josephus attributes both beliefs (i.e, immortality of the soul and resur¬ 
rection) to the Pharisees. Cf. our Introduction, 3. 

2 This corresponds to the view attributed to Rabbi Eliezer, B.T. Sanhedrin 105a. 
However, the Gemara comments that the Mishna (Sanhedrin 10, 2), by singling out the 
gentile Balaam as one who forfeited afterlife, implies that other gentiles have a share 
in it. Indeed, R. Eliezer's view is excluded from other Mishnayot that deal with the after¬ 
life, e.g., those that tell us that the people of Sodom (Sanhedrin 10, 3) have no share in 
the world-to-come, implying thereby that these non-Israelites, but for their wickedness, 
would have been eligible for after-life. 

3 Given da Costa's understanding of the phrase "have no share in the world- 
to-come” to mean "have no after-life whatsoever,” it is perhaps a valid inference (cf. 
previous note). Since the other rabbis did not oppose the view of R. Eliezer on doctrinal 
grounds, and in other places imply that for the souls of some egregiously wicked there 
is no after-life whatsoever, they must also have felt that immortality is not in the nature 
of all Adam's progeny. 

4 Luther adhered to the traducian doctrine of Tertullian, i.e., Luther believed that 
the souls, no less than the bodies of all Adam's descendants, are seminally propagated. 
Calvin, on the other hand, held with Jerome and Augustine that souls are divinely and 
continually produced. Thomas Aquinas (Summa 1, 118) criticized the traducianists for 
deriving intellectual principles from seminal souls. Some calvinist theologians went so 
far as to call traducianism an "atheistical” doctrine. Cf. Don Cameron Allen, Doubt's 
Boundless Sea, Skepticism and Faith in the Renaissance, Baltimore, 1964, 156-157. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


347 


generative power. But the latter, for their part, scoff at their opponents' 
invective. Their conviction is so well founded that there is none who 
would dare to confront them in a debate which addresses the substance 
of the issue. 

Our adversary says that Sadoq was a malicious and obstinate man 
who in Judaea, with his abominable band of followers, of whom there 
is today no longer a trace anywhere in the world, held the same opinion 
as the Epicureans. These are all empty words, spoken with the intent 
already alluded to. But anyone who does not hesitate to traduce and 
to accuse of following the path of evil out of arrogance and (if you 
please!) jealousy and obstinacy one such as me who am alive and whose 
activities are well known, will surely not shrink from levelling the same 
accusations at Sadoq and his group, who are not here to defend 
themselves. If denying immortality was his sole malice and obstinacy, 
he must have been one of the most truthful men in the world. The 
Sadducees, far from being vile and depraved were, as Josephus says, 
the noblest members of the nation. Nor is their sect extinct, for there 
are many of them alive today. The whole intent of this evil man is to 
demean and disparage, for by this means he thinks to improve his case. 
We, on the other hand, resort to the Law and to truth. 

At this point we should like to illustrate the kind of man he is and 
to show what motivated him to become the champion of the doctrine 
of the souls' immortality. To do this, we shall recount what we once 
heard him say in a homily he addressed to a gathering. He set out to 
give a definition of man, which led up to an analysis of the soul. He 
said that his authorities defined man well when they said that he is a 
being that talks, not parrot-like, but using rational speech. When on 
that occasion he spoke of the soul, he fully recognized that wise men 
of renown, such as Selomo, had denied its immortality. His speech 
ended with the very words which here follow: 


Whether I be mortal or immortal, "My soul cleaved unto the dust, revive 
Thou me according to Thy word” [Ps. 119, 25], and the word was: "Let 
Us create man in Our image and likeness.”. 


Up to here is what he said. At that time his manner of speaking 
seemed wrong to me, because in matters of such importance one should 
not leave people in doubt and confused, and if one considers the immor¬ 
tality of the soul to be an axiom of faith, in no way should one allow 
oneself to raise any doubt concerning it. But it is the custom of people 
such as he to "throw the stone and hide the hand,” as the saying goes. 



348 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


This then is the man, who now has taken it upon himself to defend 
immortality, but who as recently as yesterday was publicly declaring 
that his soul clung to the dust and that it was necessary for God to 
perform a miracle to change its nature and get it out of there. 


Chapter 6 

Argues Against the Adversary that Understanding 
Does Not Provide Immortality 


In his fourth chapter the deceitful philosopher claims that since 
man perceives — and perception is a faculty in no way corporeal — the 
human soul should be able to carry out this function after separation 
from the body, and thus remain immortal. To prove this assertion he 
soars to the heavens, setting off fireworks of foolishness, then plunges 
to prattle and twaddle and, when it is all over, returns to his starting- 
point having achieved nothing. 

Stop, false philosopher, this barrage of sound and fury on which 
you waste your time and with which you think you can confuse an unin¬ 
formed reader! Instead, if you have anything of substance to defend 
your argument, dare to confront me with it and show your mettle. Let 
me ask you: how many souls does man have? No doubt you are capable 
of saying three or four, but if you have any residue of shame left, I shall 
get you to admit that he has but one. Now, if man has one soul, it either 
dies completely or completely lives on; it cannot partly die and partly 
live on. You already admit in your third chapter that the main func¬ 
tion of the soul is to vivify. The soul which animates man is motive and 
sensitive, like that of the brute animals. If that soul dies within him 
and is extinguished, what other soul is there left to man? 

Come now, you wild beast of the jungle and allow yourself to be 
tamed. Accept, admit and own that man is an animated individual who, 
only as long as he lives corporeally, has movement, feeling and percep¬ 
tion and that these properties do not go on to a separate existence at 
his death — neither wholly nor partially — but that they are an intrinsic 
part of the sentient human being. Otherwise you must believe the soul 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


349 


which you call intellective 1 to be otiose. For if it does not give life to 
man, what then is its function? Does it perhaps stand idly by in a kind 
of supervisory capacity, while life is provided by what you call the 
sensitive soul? Such a belief would in turn imply that man is composed, 
not of a single soul combining many virtues and properties, but of more 
than one soul, each distinct and separable from the other. Such implica¬ 
tions would of course pose no great obstacle for your party, whose 
madness is such that it attributes multiple souls to people. One of these 
souls takes nightly trips around the world, gathering information. 
Another soul enters the body on the Sabbath day to bring relief. By this 
time the poor devil is so loaded down with souls that his own soul can 
hardly be distinguished among the invaders. Oh, if only there were 
enough shame in the world to restrain such rank folly from exhibiting 
itself in the market-place! 

Let it be realized that the true nature of human intellective capacity 
is physical. It resides in the heart, of which it is an intrinsic part. Just 
as a live person cannot see without eyes, so a dead one, being without 
a heart, can no longer perceive. This is what the Law says: 

And the Lord gave you not eyes to see or a heart to perceive until this 

day [cf. Dt. 29, 3]. 

And it is from a wise heart that wisdom comes forth; from a base 
heart, baseness. Pliny spoke well when he said that the mind of man 
is in his heart, which is served by the other senses and the properties 
of the rational soul. So that when the part of man which constitutes 
the intellective capacity falls away, the understanding part of him 
— an intrinsic part of the animated compound which never existed or 
acted independently of it — cannot remain. In short: the one cannot exist 
or act without the other. 

The Lord chose to make man a rational creature and put into his 
heart spirit of rational life. Man dies because the spirit of life is lacking 
in him. Who does not see that this rational accessory follows the life- 
spirit and the very thing God caused to enter into him, departs the same 
way it came? As to the argument that since God perceives without a 
body, so could the soul of man, it is impossible to respond to such imper¬ 
tinence. I have already stated that the soul of man is never without a 
body, nor is there any human perception outside of the body. In other 
words, the human being can do no perceiving without a body. 


l See end of da Silva's first chapter, where he wrote: "the intellective soul which 
makes him (i.e., the human being) like the angels.” 



350 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


In his chapter 5 our adversary tries to prove the soul's immortality 
on the basis of the will's desire to obtain that which the understanding 
recognizes as good. Among other extravagances not deserving of a reply 
he claims that the soul seems to be striving for liberation from the body 
(no doubt that is the case with Carthusian monks and desperadoes). Let 
us therefore leave him to his insipid and — in great part — false 
philosophy, and instead address his impudence and obloquy, which 
proceed from his wickedness. 

He says: 

O that this wretched and unhappy earthworm would disabuse himself 
and realize that it is out of sheer arrogance that he denies the advan¬ 
tage God gave him over brutes, out of a desire to separate himself from 
all Yisra'el. Let him know that he who denies the immortality of the 
soul comes very close to denying God himself, for he who neither fears 
nor expects anything from another life has no fear of God [...]. 

And further on he says: 

In short, if the soul comes to an end with the body, long live trium¬ 
phant Epicurus! — as an ancient moralist said. Then, to the accom¬ 
paniment of such cheers and jubilation, the day will come when the 
unhappy life of the one who sank so low as to compare his leprous and 
filthy soul to the soul of a vixen and to that of a dog, will be extinguished. 

As to the ignorance that may be found in me, I make no comment. 
By saying that it is out of arrogance that I deny the advantage God gave 
me over brutes, you clearly show the extent of your wickedness and 
your propensity to make false accusations. Had you said that my 
arrogance impels me to seek self-deification and to soar to heaven, then 
your statement might have some credibility and would carry some 
conviction. But when you say that my arrogance leads me to self- 
annihilation, nobody can hear you without recognizing your 
malevolence, for such a species of arrogance is unknown in the world. 

No, I do not separate myself from Yisra'el but only from its 
illegitimate children. Such I do indeed leave to themselves and to you, 
who are the dregs of Yisra'el. Thereby I in fact draw nearer to Yisra'el. 

When you say that he who denies immortality has nothing to expect 
from God and neither knows nor fears Him, you are revealing your 
colours as an Epicurean. For it is denying Providence to say that during 
his lifetime man has nothing to expect from God. You imply that 
everything that befalls one during one's lifetime is attributable to 
chance, not recognizing that the blessings and evils of this life are all 
dispensed by God. Had you recognized this, you could never have said 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


351 


that during his lifetime a man has nought to expect from God nor any 
reason to fear Him. 2 And then, in chapter 11, when it suits your book, 
you suddenly realize that the Law had no need to mention punishments 
or rewards in another world, since the expectancy of those of this world 
— cash fines and premiums as it were —, produce a more than adequate 
effect. O contrary and evil spirit, truly the leprosy with which God 
afflicted your body and the loathsome, fetid, scabious itch, by dint of 
which you eat yourself up and crumble as you walk around the streets, 
wasted away, without a face, show and make clear to the world the 
foulness and ugliness of your heart, because God habitually displays 
on a sinner's body outward signs of his heart's depravity. But on me 
what signs have you found to permit you to call my soul leprous? You 
cannot show any on my body, which God in His mercy has vouchsafed 
me clean and without blemish. And what actions of mine can you point 
to in justification of your words? It was not I, 0 treacherous mortifier, 
who compared my soul to those of vixens and dogs; I know how to 
recognize the value of the being that God gave me! Whereas you do not, 
because that soul of yours after it leaves your body — as your sage 
divines have taught you — will have to enter a dog in order to be purged 
and penanced. This then explains why you speak of vixens and dogs 
without compunction. 

"If the soul comes to an end with the body, long live triumphant 
Epicurus! — as an ancient moralist said.” Without any doubt this 
moralist must have been as base as you are (here he once again 3 
denies divine providence!). If Epicurus can live and triumph to his 
heart's content, then by all means: "long live triumphant Epicurus!” 
But if instead of living he could die a most painful death and if — instead 
of his triumphing — a wild beast, a flood, a plague, a sword or any other 
affliction which God brings upon humans to punish them for their sins, 
could triumph over him, why then say Epicurus will live and triumph? 
Do you know who said the cleverest thing? He who said: "Let no man 
consider himself fortunate before he is dead.” So, while Epicurus may 
live and triumph today, tomorrow he may be swept away — and where 
is his triumph then? 


2 Da Costa is here unjustly ascribing to da Silva a thought he never expressed, 
by taking his words out of context. At most Da Silva had implied that belief in immor¬ 
tality is an effective intimidator, and if that belief is lost, with it goes a powerful motive 
for some people's religiosity. Now da Costa has obscured this point. 

3 This accusation is hardly fair. Cf. previous note. 



352 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Chapter 7 

Replying to the Adversary’s Sixth , 

Wherein He Denies that God Judges People in This Life 


In his sixth chapter the adversary attempts to bolster his erroneous 
belief that the righteous are not rewarded in this life. He cites the 
example of Ya c aqob and c Esav, of whom Mal'aki says: 

[...] I loved Ya c aqob. And I hated c Esav [...] [Mai. 1, 2-3] 

but in whose lives he alleges that the respective effects of God's love 
and of His hatred were not made manifest. 

An ungrateful person needs to be both base and blind, because an 
incapacity to recognize is the beginning of ingratitude. Therefore the 
Law says: 


Will ye thus requite the Lord, 0 worthless and unwise people [...]? 

[Dt. 32, 6] 

implying that ingratitude only occurs in people who have such defects 
and failings. Such must also be the case with the person making this 
allegation. Although he seems to have good eye-sight, it does not let him 
see wherein God gave the advantage to Ya c aqob or how it was that He 
made him greater than c Esav. 

Really now, you ungrateful beast, is it not sufficient for you to hear 
God say: 

I [...] God of 'Abraham, God of Yishaq and God of Ya c aqob [...] [Ex. 3, 6] 

for you to understand that God gave a great advantage to Ya c aqob 
over c Esav and that this title and this honour are worth more than all 
earthly riches? It so happens that the title and honour were indeed 
accompanied by a multitude of goods and chattels; and the favours God 
granted Ya c aqob by consoling and encouraging him and by saving him 
from imminent dangers were of greater weight and value than all 
triumphs. We suppose that when Mal'aki speaks of God's love for the 
one and aversion to the other, he indeed refers to the birthright and 
the blessing which God took from c Esav — to whom they belonged — 
and passed on to Ya c aqob. But it seems that for this to be fulfilled on 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


353 


earth to your satisfaction, c Esav would have had to be starving and 
destitute, a mere nobody. You forget that c Esav too was Yishaq's son, 
and his beloved to boot. Nor can we discover any evidence of evil deeds 
committed by him; far from being covetous, for a mess of pottage he 
relinquished his birthright to his brother, who had asked him for it. 

Let us not imagine ourselves to be the only ones that count, nor 
believe that only we are entitled to prosper and enjoy a good reputa¬ 
tion. 1 Suffice it that we occupy the first place and possess the 
privilege of primogeniture in the House of the Lord, the Creator of All 
Beings. However, let us remember that he who receives most, owes most 
and that he who is closest to the king should be most conscientious and 
scrupulous in his presence, or run the risk of falling out of favour. Let 
us realize that God has chosen us to give us a great advantage in honour 
and wealth over His other creatures, but only on condition that we 
accomplish deeds worthy of sons of such a Father and servants of such 
a Lord. If we fail to fulfil the terms, we lose this dignity and high esteem 
and become the tail instead of the head. Considering that we are now 
the tail, let us strive to become the head again. And if we want to see 
that the promises made to Ya c aqob apply to temporal blessings, we 
need but ask his father and he will tell us: 

And Yishaq answered and said unto c Esav: "Behold I have made him 
lord over thee and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; 
and with bread and must have I strengthened him; and what can I do 
now for thee, my son?” [Gn. 27, 37]. 

You further allege that there would have been no point for the 
patriarchs to seek burial in the Holy Land, had they not believed that 
burial there guaranteed resurrection. If this is your reasoning, you 
might have added that they feared the subterranean somersaults by 
means of which — according to the excellent Sages — bodies outside 
its borders make their way to the Holy Land, rolling over and over under 
the earth until they reach their destination. Once there, they are 
guaranteed resurrection, which can apparently be achieved only in that 
special climate. 2 0 ye madmen and fools! What lunacies and 
insanities are you to invent next? 


1 To avoid confusion, the personal pronouns "we” and "us” have been adopted 
to render da Costa's tu, which, if translated literally, would only refer to Da Silva, whereas 
in fact, in this rhetorical passage, it shifts from the historical patriarch Jacob, through 
ancient Israel, to the contemporary jewish community and no longer refers to da Silva. 

2 Cf. B.T. Ketubot 111a; J.T. Kilayim 9, 4; Bereshit Rabba, Vayehi. 



354 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


The true reason why Ya c aqob ordered his body transported for 
burial in the cave that he had reserved for himself in the land of 
Kena c an, was none other than the reason he himself gave. It was to 
allow him to rest with his forbears in that land that was his and had 
been promised as an inheritance for his descendants. There he wished 
his remains to lie as a memorial to be honoured, and not be forgotten 
in a foreign land (Gn. 47, 29-32). It is customary for kings and nobles, 
if they die in foreign parts, for their remains to be brought back to the 
land of their birth to rejoin their ancestors in the family sepulchre. It 
seems to be a consolation for the dead to lie among their own. 3 As a 
certain philosopher, scandalized by his land of birth, was moved to say: 

Ungrateful fatherland, thou shalt not possess my bones. Thou wilt not 
derive honour from me, nor shall I derive consolation from burial in 
thee, for thou art a stepmother. 

Since we have seen the true reason for Kena c an being preferred 
to Egypt for burial, it is silly to look here for proof of the immortality 
of the soul and the resurrection of the dead. 


Chapter 8 

Replies to Some of the Adversary's Arguments 
Which are Poorly Founded on Scripture 


He continues in Chapter 7 to try and prove his contention by saying 
that the breath which God breathed into the nostrils of the first human 
being came directly from God's mouth and is therefore necessarily 
incorruptible. 

If one were to take the anthropomorphisms of Scripture at face 
value, one would fall into endless traps and say such ridiculous things 


3 It would be an unthinkable lapse on da Costa's part if he were here conceding 
that the dead experience an emotion such as consolation. Therefore we should probably 
construe his thought as follows: the consolation resides in the anticipatory knowledge 
of the living concerning the fate of their mortal remains. However, perhaps after all some 
level of da Costa's consciousness could not dismiss the import of the patriarchal references 
to a kind of inter-familial fellowship in the grave, e.g., Gn. 15, 15; 47, 30; etc. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


355 


as "God has a body and walks about”; "He has a face and hands.” But 
since such language could never have been intended literally, nothing 
can extenuate the great indecency of perceiving God as breathing and 
considering the breath which entered the human being to be, as our 
adversary claims, that of God, insufflated by His own mouth. Even if 
one concedes that the breath was not produced by a mouth but that 
it came forth from God's breathing, comparable to the breath which 
is produced by a human mouth, one is stating an impossibility. For God 
to carry out a task there is no need for Him to separate it from Himself 
by some action or exterior movement. His will and the task to be 
performed coincide and when He wills its execution, it is already done. 
It is therefore wrong to believe that God breathed or that breath came 
forth from God. Moreover, if this were the case, the soul would be part 
of God, by virtue of its consisting of God's breath: an utter absurdity. 

What must be understood is that God inspired, i.e., made to enter 
into the nostrils of the first human being, the spirit of life, the spirit 
by which man came alive. That spirit or breath is not part of God nor 
did it come out of Him directly, but rather did God take it from the 
air, just as He had produced from the earth the body of that same being. 
With this aerial spirit, joined to the clay of which he was formed, man 
came into being as a living soul. 

This truth is amply confirmed by Scripture: 

Thou didst blow with Thy spirit, the sea covered them [...] [Ex. 15, 10]. 

It was not God who blew, but He made the wind to blow: 

[...] the breath of the Lord like a stream of sulphur which was blazing 
in it [Is. 30, 33]. 

It was not the breath of the Lord that was fanning this fire, but 
a strong wind, called "of the Lord,” to emphasize its strength. 

That this breath was of the nature of air is confirmed by Yehezqel, 
when he says: 

[...] From the four winds come, O spirit, and breathe into these dead, 
and they will live [Ezek. 37, 9]. 

This is why Selomo says that man has the same spirit as other 
animals, for although the animals came out of the ground alive by the 
will of God, their spirit is of the nature of air and they were formed 
of the elements, through the divine will. It is precisely because of this 



356 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


hybrid, yet harmonious, composition that many people define the soul 
as a mixture of contradictory elements, well balanced and in the right 
proportions. 

Even if it were true (which it is not) that the vital spirit of man 
proceeded from the divine will immediately, it would not follow that 
this spirit is immortal; for this to follow it would be necessary to prove 
that anything created by God — and in whose creation no elemental 
matter intervened— is immortal. And it would be impossible to 
establish this proof because the works of God receive their being only 
in accordance with His will and thus it depends on the conditions of 
creation and the identity of the created thing whether any one of them 
has a corruptible or an incorruptible nature. Man is corruptible. When 
Luther was discussing Creation, he tried to imagine what Aristotle 
might have felt had anyone told him that man was created out of clay 
and was also capable of immortality. This is what he wrote: Aristotle 
would have burst out laughing. 

Our adversary cites: 

[...] souls I have made [Is. 57, 16] 


and: 


All souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so the soul of the son 
— Mine are they [Ezek. 18, 4]. 

Similarly: 

As for me, in righteousness shall I behold Thy face; I shall be surfeited, 
when awaking, with Thy likeness [Ps. 17, 5]. 

Similarly: 

Surely God will redeem my soul from the power of the pit when He 
will take me [Ps. 49, 16]. 

[Our adversary claims:] 

God is called: "God of 'Abraham, God of Yishaq and God of Ya c aqob” 
and God cannot be called God of non-existence. Scripture says: "And 
the Lord spake unto Moses face to face as a man speaketh with his 
friend [...]” [Ex. 33, 11]. Since God is spirit, that to which He 
communicates Himself must needs be spirit, without any admixture 
of matter. If Bil c am had not contemplated the existence of bliss 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


357 


beyond the grave, he would have had no reason to request for himself 
the death of the just, and dying the death of the just or of the unjust 
would have been a matter of indifference to him. In fact it might have 
suited him better to die — as indeed he did die — from the blow of 
a sword, than from a sickness, to which sometimes also the righteous 
fall victim. Anything said to the contrary is false and unworthy of 
barbarian heathens and we are convinced that he who denies this truth 
will ultimately deny the Law. 

Elsewhere he cites: 

When the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will 
return unto God who gave it [Eccl. 12, 7]. 

Concerning the verses in Yesa c yahu and Yehezqel we would 
comment that the only thing they prove is that God is the Creator and 
Lord of all and, therefore, will not always be wroth against His 
creatures. He also knows how to judge father and son, for all belong 
to Him. If this is the doctrine our clumsy exegete wishes to extract from 
these verses, of course we go along with him. 

Now the verse: 

As for me, in righteousness shall I Behold Thy face; [I shall be surfeited, 
when awaking, with Thy likeness] [Ps. 17, 15] 

signifies that the psalmist is preparing to appear in the Temple before 
God and that the road he will set out upon first thing in the morning 
will lead him to that same Temple — which is equivalent to saying "the 
face of God”, as we have already expounded. There he will praise God 
for His mercy in freeing and saving him from his enemies. In the same 
way he says he "will be surfeited,” to signify the intense satisfaction 
which he will derive from this worship, because the cherubs situated 
on the mercy-seat somehow represented the divine dwelling-place which 
is hidden from our view. 

As to the argument from the verse: 

Surely God will redeem my soul [from the power of the pit when He 
will take me] [Ps. 49, 16] 

our reply may be guessed from what we said about similar verses. This 
can only mean that God saves and redeems the righteous from the traps 
and mischief of the wicked who conspire to bring them to their death 
and an early grave. If this verse, however, is saying anything which 
opposes the manifest truth revealed irrefutably in innumerable places 



358 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


in the Law and the rest of Scripture, then we would simply classify it 
with everything else fabricated by the Pharisees in support of their futile 
fantasies. This psalm, as it happens, is not by David and, like a number 
of others, was written during the period of the Second Temple, when 
Pharisaism was already the dominant ideology. But in reality the verse 
has no other meaning than the one we offered and, consequently, 
contains no doctrine contrary to the truth, for it says: 

God will redeem my soul from the power of the pit. 

Now, if, as the immortalists claim, the soul, as soon as it is freed 
from the body, journeys to God who had given it, then it would not be 
in the pit and so would not need to be delivered from its power. Or are 
we to believe that the word "soul” designates here the disfigured and 
rotting corpse and that the Psalmist expects it to be redeemed from 
the pit? In that case we would be dealing with a pathetic soul that had 
lost all its lustre. Moreover, why should immortal souls — capable of 
enjoying the sight of the Divine Essence (oh, what madness!) — pine 
for their miserable, impure, disfigured, wasted bodies and desire to be 
reunited with them? Rather might they consider such a fate a horrible 
punishment. Who can fail to see that it would be much more proper 
for a soul who is enjoying God's presence to be bodiless than embodied? 
Now if the immortalists would grant that the spirit ends with the body, 
they could still believe that a time would come when God, raising up 
the body, would, by a new act of creation, give it a new spirit. Even 
in that case the verse from Psalm 49 could not be interpreted to support 
such a resurrection or, rather, recreation. When Iyob wistfully says: 

Oh who would grant that Thou mightest hide me in the grave, that Thou 
mightest conceal me until Thy wrath be appeased; that Thou mightest 
set for me a fixed time and remember me then! [Job 14, 13] 

he well realized that there is no such thing and Psalm 49, 16 expresses 
the same thought. 

The argument that God calls Himself God of 'Abraham, Yishaq and 
Ya c aqob and cannot call Himself God of something which has no 
existence, is quite amusing. If there had never been an 'Abraham, Yishaq 
or Ya c aqob, God would not have called Himself their God. But if 
indeed there were such patriarchs and the selfsame Lord who calls 
Himself their God had been their God, had accompanied, succoured, 
defended and delivered them from their enemies, why should it not be 
possible to say that He was their God? Why should He not make Himself 
known by that title to their descendants and remind them that He is 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


359 


the same God who was God, Strength and Shelter to their ancestors 
and had been worshipped by them? 

The other argument, that God spoke to Mose without any 
intermediary, is just as preposterous as the foregoing one. It would 
seem that our adversary wishes to strip Mose of his body and make 
him into a fleshless spirit in order to justify the language of Scripture. 
However, Mose went in and out with his body, and did not leave it at 
the portal. The meaning therefore is that God did not speak to Mose 
in dreams or visions, but that Mose heard from close by a voice that 
was speaking with him, as he could hear the voice of a human being. 
This is also what the Lord said to 'Aharon and Miryam when they 
wanted to be equal to him [cf. Nm. 12, 2-8]. 

What our opponent has to say about Bil c am, that it would have 
been a matter of indifference to him, in the absence of an afterlife, 
whether he died the death of the just or the unjust, whether he died 
trampled underfoot from the blows of a sword, or in bed, demonstrates 
the blindness or, rather, the perversity of a wicked and twisted mind 
that wants at all costs to contradict the truth. Were I now to wish upon 
him death at the hands of his foes, he would without any doubt call 
me his greatest foe and exclaim that he would prefer God to kill him 
in his bed. (Do not get me wrong — I wish no such thing on you; let 
God kill you in any manner He wills but, if you are not completely out 
of your mind, request for yourself the death of the righteous, as 
Bil c am did. As to your remarks about the barbarians and heathens and 
that I would ultimately deny the Law, you speak more basely and 
shamelessly than the crassest heathen. As for you, the question is not 
whether you are about to deny the Law, for you already deny and undo 
it, substituting lies for its truth. Moreover, you make way for Epicurus 
to triumph, because you deny divine judgement and providence on 
earth.) We must still deal with the verse: 

And the dust will return to the earth [as it was and the spirit will return 

unto God who gave it] [Eccl. 12, 7]. 

To avoid impugning the authenticity of this text, one could inter¬ 
pret it like similar verses in which it says that God gathers up the spirit 
of animals without implying that after having been gathered up these 
spirits have any continued existence. Similarly, here it says that the 
spirit goes, or returns to God, without suggesting that it goes anywhere 
in particular or takes on any kind of existence after it leaves the body. 
Besides, in this chapter there are many circumlocutions. For instance, 
in the verse just cited, "before [...] one dies” or "before [...] the day of 



360 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


death comes” is expressed this way: "before [...] the dust returns to the 
earth, etc.” 

But, to be quite frank, this whole twelfth chapter of Ecclesiastes 
seems to us an apocryphal addition by the high-faluting divines, who 
do not express themselves in the language of ordinary mortals. For 
example, to portray old age, they start out with the following tirade: 

Before the sun [...] and the moon and the stars are darkened and the 
clouds return after the rain. On the day when the watchmen of the house 
will move and the men of might will bend [...] [Eccl. 12, 2-3] 


which goes on and on, too long to quote. They themselves explain it all, 
solving these enigmas of their own making and thereby demonstrating 
their great erudition. 

This chapter differs notably in style from the rest of the book. We 
submit that it was added by the Sages to support immortality, which 
up to that point had been denied repeatedly throughout the book. For 
example, the above-cited verse contradicts what is said elsewhere in 
this book about the spirit of man. The forgery becomes even more 
evident when we look again at: 

And the dust will return to the earth as it was and the spirit will return 
unto God who gave it [Eccl. 12, 7]. 

The expression seems turned inside out, because the spirit leaves 
first and only then does the body return to the earth. As it is written: 

His spirit will go forth, he shall return to his earth [...] [Ps. 146, 4]. 

In our opinion, Qohelet 12, 7 alludes to a fable. These men found 
out that the spirit cannot go at once to heaven, but that it must hover 
awhile above the earth to be purged. 1 Nor can it leave this world 
before its former body is changed to earth. And to facilitate this process, 
burial is sought in soil that has the property and ability to waste and 
consume bodies quickly. From this they derive that the spirits of the 
defunct are aware of what is going on in this world as long as they are 
in the vicinity of the grave, and until they soar upward. Thus the 
spurious verse contains within itself all these mysteries and prodigies 


i Cf. J.T. Moed Katan 3, 5; Yebamot 16, 1. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


361 


and that is why its language is upside down and inside out and in 
contradiction with all the rest of Scripture in which we do not find 
another one remotely like it. 


Chapter 9 

That the Soul of Man is in the Blood 


Having proved the soul's immortality to his own satisfaction, as 
can be seen in the preceding chapters, our adversary, in his eighth, 
proceeds to an attempted refutation of the arguments on which we base 
the soul's mortality. First of all he claims that our definition is 
unsatisfactory, lacking order and the diagnosis required for true defini¬ 
tions. This pathetic philosopher wants his readers, at all costs, to know 
that he studied Aristotle. So, suddenly, apropos of nothing, he 
announces that a dialectic definition requires order and diagnosis. But 
the dastard fails to see that it was not at all our intention to make 
dialectic definitions which are dependent on a specialized jargon, 
because we are not speaking to dialecticians. Rather do we want to 
explain and make clear just what is meant by "soul” to people for whom 
definitions such as Aristotle's would be incomprehensible. Were we to 
say to these people that Aristotle defined the soul as a "sensitive and 
movable substance” or a "form of a natural body which lives,” they 
would require an explanation of what is meant by "substance” or 
"form” and a detailed breakdown of these definitions into their compo¬ 
nent parts. Then, instead of showing and proving our point by the Law 
and common sense, we should get sidetracked into fruitless explana¬ 
tions of the vocabulary of logic, so inopportune and alien to the matter 
at hand. 

Further on in his chapter he accuses us of having said that accor¬ 
ding to the Law the soul of an animal consists of its spiritualized blood. 
He claims that the Law spoke metaphorically, because the soul is an 
incorporeal, indivisible substance, the source and principle of life, 
whereas the blood, on the other hand, is corruptible and divisible, so 
far from being a soul or even a derivative of the soul, that it does not 
possess any life nor is it any intrinsic part of an animal. Such vile and 



362 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


lowly material could therefore hardly be the soul. Wherefore one cannot 
suffer (he says): 

an ignoramus who, unaware of the a.b.c. of philosophy, dares to propose 
definitions of souls. His ignorance is in fact so great and so crass that 
he completely misunderstands the words of the Law concerning the 
soul of brute animals and applies them literally to the soul of man, 
without any other support than his own opinion, not realizing that the 
consumption of human blood is not forbidden by the Law. 

I do not doubt that if people of discretion were to examine his words 
they would advise me not to bother replying to them. However, since 
he touches on problems of general interest, it would not be right to leave 
them completely unanswered. That an animal's blood is its soul is not 
only upheld by the Law; it is an opinion well-known to the philosophers 
of antiquity. One of them, Cricias, in order to show and confirm that 
the soul is blood, argued that the parts of an animal which have no 
blood, such as teeth, nails and hair, have no feeling, whence it follows 
that the sensitivity of the soul derives from the blood. The objection 
was made that the nerves, which convey sensation, have no blood and 
that insects such as wasps and bees have no blood either but are never¬ 
theless possessed of a sensitive soul. To this the Church Father Origen 
replied (Book of Principles, 2,8 — later condemned by the Church) that, 
though indeed without blood, these insects have an aqueous humour 
of the nature of blood and that the question as to whether or not this 
humour has the colour of blood is irrelevant, since it functions the same 
way as does blood in other animals. Thus Origen confirms the opinion 
of the Law on this matter and quotes from it. Moreover, the greatest 
Latin poet wittily described someone dying, by the words: "he expelled 
the red soul.” So, his saying that the Law spoke in metaphors and that 
there is no equivalence between the blood and the soul, shows up our 
adversary as a wrester and distorter of Scripture, who takes literally 
the metaphorical and allegorical passages, figuratively those which are 
clear and obvious in meaning. Still not content he shamelessly addresses 
to us the following words: 

Why tire ourselves out explaining the metaphoric nature of one passage 
to a person who so obstinately takes all literally? Let him believe and 
say man is a trunk with branches and roots, since the Law says man 
is a tree of the field. 


O base, false and wicked fellow, fastened and begirded with straps! 
Convinced that you know the true meaning of the Law, you believe that 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


363 


it orders you to strap yourself up this way, or to brandish and flourish 
a sheaf of branches before God and perform other activities of this sort. 
So is it I who am taking the Law too literally and am indiscriminately 
embracing its words? Am I not rather the one who researches and digs 
out its true meaning? Unfortunately for you, your sins caused you to 
come up with a ridiculously literal interpretation which only 
demonstrates your baseness and wickedness. The Law never actually 
said that man is a tree of the field. It asks a rhetorical question which 
you transform into a statement! 

Our adversary defines the soul of animals as an incorporeal, 
indivisible substance. While it is true that Aristotle and other 
philosophers who posited that any soul is incorporeal, considered and 
had in mind an incorporeal entity which they called "soul,” they never¬ 
theless affirmed that it could not exist without a body. The very word 
"soul” implies an animated body; a bodiless soul is an impossibility. 
For our present purpose there is no need to delve more deeply into this 
matter. We would just like to return to our adversary's chapter 4, where 
he says that if the soul had anything corporeal about it, in view of its 
being joined to the body "it would follow that two bodies would be in 
one place simultaneously, an absurd and unacceptable concept.” We 
reply that the soul has its place in the body together with its other 
constituent parts, such as nerves, flesh and bones. All these, though 
corporeal and simultaneously present, are neither incompatible nor 
totally interpenetrative, but unite and join to compose a body. The soul 
has its place, first of all in the heart — which is called the source and 
principle of life, because from it emerge the veins and arteries, which 
may be called the vessels and receptacles of the life-spirit which is mixed 
and united with the blood. When the blood is distributed throughout 
the body, the result is not "two bodies simultaneously in one place”, 
but one body, consisting of flesh and blood. As we said, the soul is the 
vital spirit in the blood. Let him decide now whether this spirit in the 
blood should be called "corporeal substance,” "incorporeal substance” 
or whatever other name. How careless of him to remark so offhandedly 
that "souls” (presumably including those of animals) are an incorporeal 
substance. Whoever hears him will think that the souls of cows, being 
incorporeal substances, can exist outside of the body. 

I refrain from citing the various classifications of the soul's "being” 
offered by the philosophers, for each assigns it a "being” in accordance 
with his understanding of first principles. Those who argue that 
elemental fire is the first principle, posit that the soul's "being” is of 
the same nature as fire. Others, who argue that air, or water, or all four 
elements constitute the first principle, define the soul's "being” accor- 



364 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


dingly. These and other opinions are a matter for philosophical 
discourse which is not to our purpose here. 

Our adversary further states that "such vile and lowly matter” as 
blood could hardly be the soul. 0 fake philosopher! Without having 
studied much Aristotle but solely with the help of the rational 
philosophy which God taught me, I can demonstrate your obtuseness 
even in your own professional field. You who deny the truth, 
treacherous dissembler that you are, answer me this: whereof consists 
the matter with which we procreate? Is it not a blood-like aqueous 
humour, the product of food scraps, processed by nature? Now if the 
souls of animals (leaving human beings aside for the nonce) are 
generated from this humour, what is your great objection to any 
sanguineous humour whatsoever being the soul, which sustains, 
animates and keeps afoot the animals procreated in this way? Your 
Aristotle says that procreation takes place by and with heat, that anima¬ 
tion comes into being thanks to heat and that life is nought but the dura¬ 
tion of this heat which, unless refreshed by the air, is wasted, for the 
raw materials of life are humour and heat. If we are animated and 
nourished by blood; if before we come into being, the blood is there 1 
and, once we have come into being, we live thanks to it; that, without 
it, there is neither life, nor being: how can you then slander blood by 
calling it a "vile and lowly matter, which neither lives nor is part of 
the body”? The vital blood is life itself and, if the heart may be called 
the source and principle of life, it is because from it the blood flows 
and is distributed throughout the body. The heart, in turn, fountain of 
life, functions thanks to that same blood; when the blood no longer 
enters it, the heart ceases to be a fountain, because a fountain is only 
called thus as long as it contains liquid which flows from it. No doubt 
hands and feet are intrinsic parts of the body, as you say (why speak 
in Latin 2 to people who do not understand), yet we can live without 
hands or feet, but we cannot live without blood. That which is indispen¬ 
sable to life must be of higher value. One who cuts off another's hand, 
pays with a hand, and no more; but from him who has taken another's 


1 We do not understand the transition from a premise which recognizes humour 
and heat as the only raw materials of life, to an assumption that blood is also one of 
them. If da Costa in his mind equated what he calls "blood-like humour” with human 
blood, he seems to have left the establishment of that equivalence unstated. 

2 ’’Speaking in Latin” may perhaps mean speaking above the head of one's 
readers. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


365 


life, they require all his blood. 3 How then do you justify belittling the 
blood? 

Well, that is the way you are. Now, seeing that you are that way 
and that you make so many errors in your philosophical exposition, 
how dare you call me unlearned in philosophy and assert that I have 
a nerve to define souls without your permission? Will you not believe, 
O wicked spirit!, that I am not totally destitute of philosophical 
knowledge and that I do know what definitions are even though I 
never taught logic or philosophy? This knowledge I needed for what 
I professed — and, for your information, I study Aristotle too! Indeed, 
if you would like to consult lecture notes of your university courses 
better than the ones you took down in class, you will find them in my 
possession. 4 

The next step — since this captious opponent forces us to prove 
something so evident — is to show that when the Law says that the 
soul of the meat is in the blood, this also holds true for the soul of 
human beings. 

[1.] It can be proven by the following words in Genesis (9, 4-5): 

Only the flesh with its soul, its blood shall ye not eat. Verily, your blood 
will I require from your souls: at the hand of every beast will I require 
it; and at the hand of man, at the hand of a man's brother, will I require 
the soul of man. 

It is clear from this text that the Law considers blood to be the soul 
of the animal as well as the soul of man. I could go on demonstrating 
this from many other passages, but I hardly need to bring more evidence 
in support of such an obvious proposition and one text will suffice. 

2. It may also be demonstrated by reason. For just as an animal 
dies through loss of blood, so does man. If his soul did not consist in 
the blood, as does the soul of the brute, man would not die from a lack 
of blood, but would continue to live by means of that other substance 
which animated him. 


3 Here again the argument seems to defy reason. The moral and legal difference 
between homicide and maiming is not whether or not blood-letting is involved; cutting 
off a hand must surely entail the loss of blood; killing ( e.g ., by suffocation) can be effected 
without it. 

4 This remark tends to confirm that da Costa and da Silva both attended Coimbra 
university, one studying medicine and the other reading Canon Law. 



366 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Let us now examine the last — but not least — of this perverse 
man's follies, where he accuses us of ignorance for not knowing, what 
he knows, namely, that human blood is not forbidden by the Law. Since 
he forces us to do so, we shall point out his impiety and grossness: 

1. Natural law teaches that one person's blood is not proper food 
for another person and, consequently, its consumption is forbidden. 
The divine Law neither legislated against nor abrogated natural law. 
Therefore anything forbidden by natural law remains forbidden by the 
divine Law. 

2. The divine Law allowed human beings to eat the flesh of 
animals, forbidding them, however, the blood. It did not permit them 
the flesh, and even less so the blood, of another human being. That 
which it did not permit him is forbidden him: consequently, it forbids 
him both the flesh and the blood of another human being. 

3. The divine Law states that the blood of the man killed by a beast 
and by the hand of another man will be avenged and thereby forbids 
its spilling. If Scripture, which does not forbid the slaughter of animals, 
nevertheless prohibits the consumption of their blood, then it surely 
does not mean us to eat the blood of humans, whose killing it forbids. 5 

4. Since the flesh of the animal which does not chew the cud and 
has no split hoof is forbidden by the Law, much more so is its blood. 
Man neither ruminates nor has a hoof. Therefore, the flesh of man is 
prohibited by Law and a fortiori his blood. 6 Beyond this point the pen 
cannot proceed. Fetch bridles and bits to gag such wicked and 
unrestrained mouths. 

What remains certain is that the human heart and, consequently, 
the human being is animated by blood. If it is wanting, the soul comes 
to an end. This is confirmed by colloquial speech, because we call a 
man who lacks blood disheartened or dispirited, and when someone 
is approaching death and his feet and limbs start to get cold, we say 
that there is no more soul in them, because their blood and concomi- 


5 For the sake of clarity, we have expanded Da Costa's a fortiori argument, which 
he expounds in just six Portuguese words. 

6 By classifying humans with cattle, da Costa conveniently avoids the fact that 
the Law permits for consumption many hoof less animals which do not ruminate ( e.g ., 
certain birds and fishes). 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


367 


tant heat have gone. Thus, everything points to the body's being 
animated by blood. The verse quoted by our opponent: 

One may not take in pledge the nether millstone or the upper millstone, 
for one would take the soul in pledge [Dt. 24, 6] 

is more to our purpose. It says that this action is equivalent to taking 
the soul in pledge because the bread earned by means of the millstones 
is converted into blood, which is the real and true soul, as I have 
expounded more than once. 

The rest of what he says, about man walking erect and similar 
irrelevancies, are all bunkum, not deserving of reply. We would merely 
point out to him that he misunderstands and misapplies the verse: 

A lamp of the Lord is the soul of Man [...] [Pr. 20, 27]. 

It simply means that man should direct his behaviour, using the 
light of his God-given reason. The Law serves the same purpose, as it 
is written: 


For the commandment is a lamp and the Law is light [...] [Pr. 6, 23]. 

What has all this, which only shows man's intrinsic rationality, to 
do with immortality? 


Chapter 10 

Man Engenders in His Likeness 


The enemy says in his ninth chapter: 

One absurdity leads to another. We now see that this unlettered oppo¬ 
nent, starting out from a false proposition which he believes to be true 
— to wit, that the soul of man is like the soul of an animal — now comes 
up with another error, saying that brutes and human beings are alike 
and equal as regards the act of procreation and that the souls of men, 
like the souls of animals, issue from matter. 



368 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


I am not surprised that one who is without shame and lies brazenly 
about weighty matters, should be equally impudent in matters of lesser 
consequence. I was born and bred in letters, and one could almost say 
that from my mother's breast I passed to their study, and by the age 
of eight I was doing Latin grammar. They were so suited to me and came 
so naturally that I robbed time from everything else to devote to them. 
Thus I spent my youth in various studies and although my vocation was 
the study of law, curiosity impelled me to find out what theologians 
had to say and to examine their writings. Whether my mind was suited 
to theological research is not for me to say. Rather shall I await the 
judgement of others who worked with me and know me. But what I 
should like to know is how far this pathetic and dull-witted nincom¬ 
poop — a disgrace to the medical profession — will carry his malice 
and shameless insolence. Where does he get the nerve for such audacity? 
How dare he call "unlettered” one who could teach him Galen whose 
pages he turns without understanding, being so poorly trained? 

Now let us come to the main point: man engenders another being, 
in his likeness, perfect in every way. This is a conclusion whose veracity 
is so well supported by reason and the Law, that even were he a Chris¬ 
tian of the lutheran persuasion for whom immortality of the soul is an 
article of faith, he would be unable to refute it. He does well to point 
out that it would be contrary to divine justice were a clean and pure 
essence to be encased in a filthy, sinning body. Another thing he could 
have said is that God did not breathe life-spirit into the woman He 
fashioned out of man's rib, because the rib of living, animated man was 
not in need of a new soul. In fact my evil opponent probably subscribes 
to this view, though not consciously, and he would certainly never admit 
to holding it. 

He says that all philosophers and doctors recognize that from the 
seminal qualities of man issues the sensitive motive soul which man 
shares with animals and that consequently man is not inferior to 
animals in his generative potential, for from his seed a soul of the same 
quality issues as from the seed of brutes, only in a more perfect form. 
So we now have it from his mouth that the soul by which a human being 
lives, feels and moves is engendered by another human being. So far, 
so good. But then he goes on to say that an intellective soul arrives from 
outside and enters the human body. Now, if the human being lived, felt 
and moved before this additional soul came upon the scene, the latter's 
function cannot be to activate life, feeling and movement, because all 
this had already been effected. The only function left, then, for this soul 
is to speak within the human being, seeing that it has no traffic with 
the body, and that it is not harnessed to the body, in order to provide 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


369 


it with animation, because that function had already been provided by 
another soul. At this point I must remind my adversary of his third 
chapter where, in the course of his refutation of Plato's opinion, he 
asserted that the principal function of the soul is to quicken the body 
and that a soul which does not perform this function, would have 
nothing to do other than to speak within the human body as spirits were 
believed to squeak inside idols. So, according to him, the rational soul 
which enters an already living and animated body, since it does not 
enter to vivify it, enters it, presumably, merely to prattle. 

In the face of this you have only two choices. Either you recant and 
adopt Plato's opinion or you concede that no new soul enters the human 
being, and that perceiving is a property not separated from matter but 
rather an emanation from matter, just like seeing, hearing, 
remembering and other functions of the sensitive soul. My adversary 
seems unaware that he is contradicting himself, and unable to make 
up his mind — since falsehood fails him — he cuts off his nose to 
spite his face. 

I should also like to ask him the following question: suppose the 
rational soul happens to stop along the way, digs a hole, gets stuck in 
a sylvan grove of his sort and forgets to complete its journey, so that 
the human being for whom it was destined remains with no more than 
the sensitive soul, lacking the rational one. What kind of animal would 
such a creature turn out to be? Would it chatter like a magpie, course 
hares like a greyhound or, like Nebukadnesar of yore, eat grass in the 
field among the beasts? But in reality, is it not patent madness to say 
that man does not engender fully in his likeness? 

To our proof-text, where Scripture says that 'Adam engendered Set 
in his own likeness, he replies that this refers, not to the soul, but to 
the qualities and virtues which were not found in the first two sons. 
Thus, to justify his error, he compounds it by condemning Hebei, whose 
offering, Scripture tells us, was acceptable to the Lord: a sure sign of 
Hebei's righteousness. 

In chapter 10, on the subject of our censuring those who say that 
God created the souls all at once as well as those who say that He creates 
them each day anew and infuses them into bodies, he writes the 
following: 

I do not know if any legislator has spoken more insolently and boldly 
than this reviver of the base and long dead and buried sect of Epicurus. 
The matter at hand is so weighty or, should we say, so trifling in his 
eyes, that he did not bother nor did it occur to him to cite the Law or 
adduce rational arguments. Nor could he have found any to justify his 
statement that some of us "dream up follies” or "have weak and flimsy 
notions” about the way souls enter bodies — one of the great wonders 



370 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


performed by God. Now whether He created them at one time en masse 
and stored them up in the world of the souls, or whether He goes on 
creating them one by one, is immaterial to our theory, and anyway, 
why should it be more difficult for God to create souls in one way than 
in another?. 

For sure, even a horse, if horses could speak, would do better! And 
now this malicious individual manifests to the whole world his lack 
of steadfastness, constancy or faith in the opinion which he follows. 
While the tradition which he and his cohorts claim to have received 
directly from God teaches that God created all souls at the beginning 
and sends them into bodies as and when needed, he now claims that 
how souls are implanted in bodies is hidden from us and whether it 
be done in one way or in another way, is immaterial. 

So to what tradition or to what faith do you really belong, you base 
and wicked fellow? Either you are not sure of what you believe, or you 
are ashamed to uphold and defend what it stands for. One moment you 
speak like a Pharisee, the next like a Christian and you do not even 
defend your own, nor do you approve of the Christian's. You are like 
a crane with one foot in the air, or like a singer who tries to sing in 
two choruses, and ends up by singing in neither, and your indecision 
is never resolved. So by not deciding, you are already denying your faith 
and showing that you do not have one. If a Roman catholic would be 
asked about this business of souls, he would promptly reply that God 
creates them from scratch and infuses them into bodies, producing a 
new creation at each birth. If asked for proofs, he replies that it is an 
article of faith which his religion requires him to believe. 

You say that I did not dare nor did it occur to me to cite the Law 
or to adduce rational arguments in support of what I said. Once again 
you demonstrate your lack of knowledge and your baseness. You who 
propose that souls were created en masse (actually I have lost track 
of what you are proposing and I wonder whether you quite know 
yourself), are the one who needs to prove your theory by Law or by 
rational arguments. But, unable to furnish proofs either from the Law 
or from reason, all you can offer are those of a treacherous prevaricator, 
more worthy of derision than of consideration. Only a confirmed scrib¬ 
bler, which I am not, would devote his time and his words to reply to 
such trifles. So let me refer you to the Conimbricences (volume 2, ques¬ 
tion 1 on the first book of Aristotle's Posteriores, article 2) and to 
Aristotle's own words cited there. Since you are an Aristotelian 
philosopher, why do I not spare myself the trouble of further writing 
and simply send you back to your teacher? For others, who have no 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


371 


access to these works, I shall give but one argument to show the 
weakness of your position. 

If you grant that this world will never end, then you must recognize 
that procreation will never cease. (Were you to insist that the world 
will come to an end..., — you would first have to get authorization to 
hold such a view from other Pharisees, your brethren, who believe in 
a world without end). 1 Now supposing souls all to have been created 
at the same time, their number must have been finite, since such a crea¬ 
tion could not have been infinite. The generations, on the other hand, 
being infinite, sooner or later souls will run out, and then from human 
seed will spring imperfect, soulless bodies. You may invoke metemp¬ 
sychosis and say that these souls, to break their boredom, go body¬ 
hopping, so that all bodies will, after all, be provided for. But as 
I understand it this type of entertainment is not everlasting; for since 
you believe that the soul cannot be recycled more than twice, it comes 
to an end after the third body. So, if the world is eternal, we end up 
with the same objection, namely that the stock of souls will ultimately 
be depleted, for a finite supply can never keep up with an infinite 
demand. 

So, seeing the weakness of this line of argument, you switch to the 
opinion of a Roman catholic and say God continuously creates souls 
from scratch — including of course the dismal little souls created for 
the infidel, the savage and the cannibal (O wretched souls, to have come 
down from so high to such misery!). For support of this fantasy you 
would no doubt refer me to the letter Leon I wrote to Turibius, Bishop 
of Asturias, and to the Council of Braga, but I must remind you that 
I am not a Christian, so please address me as a son of 'Abraham, Yishaq 
and Ya c aqob — not an illegitimate, but a legitimate one. 

But if you have come to the realization that both the Pharisees, 
whose beliefs you profess, and the Roman catholics, whose beliefs you 
do not profess, have failed you, and you now attribute everything to 
the power and the wisdom of the Lord, then I say to you: Come to your 
senses, perfidious, evil, misguided one! Abandon the difficult, stony, 
circuitous byways and get back onto the easy, clean and safe highway. 
Repeat —without fear of that erring world which you look up to 
— the words which the Law and reason teach you and oblige you 
to recite: 

And God blessed them and God said unto them: "Be fruitful and 

multiply” [...] [Gn. 1, 28]. 


l The reference is probably to the Guide of the Perplexed, 2, 27, where Maimonides 
argues that the world is eternal. 



372 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Do not make out God's work to be incomplete and imperfect. It 
seems extraordinary to you that from matter such as human seed 
should emerge a perfectly wrought creature. Then you say that the best 
philosophers (you poor wretched philosopher!) turned from the 
contemplation of this achievement to wonderment and admiration. Why 
do you, then, not act likewise and by these same steps come to recognize 
something of the great power and wisdom of the Master Workman who 
has the ability and knowledge to perform such works. Do not attempt 
to limit that power by saying that God cannot produce a rational 
creature out of seed and that reason has to be brought in from outside 
by bucket-conveyor. The Master Workman produced a great diversity 
of animals, giving each one a different natural instinct, and to some 
such superiority that many believe them to be endowed with reason. 
Indeed all agree that their instinct, by means of the interior senses, 
approximates human reason and, sometimes, prudence, even though 
they do not express them in rational discourse. All this diversity in the 
animal kingdom is extracted from the seed which He placed in them. 
Surely for this Master Workman it cannot be difficult, much less 
impossible, to extract from human seed another creature similar to its 
progenitors. Just as He is able, at will, to compose and fashion this body 
with superlative art and balance, in the same way is He able, if He 
desires, to give it a still higher degree of perfection by endowing it with 
reason and rational discourse. Furthermore, God crafted humankind's 
heart and senses in precisely such a way as to accommodate that soul. 

Before going any further — and I beg you not to lose patience — 
I must ask you a question. Did you not say, just a short while ago in 
your chapter 4, that as far as understanding goes the rational soul 
knows of no limits and is able to have apprehension in all matters which 
God apprehends, the created and the non-created and even in the 
essence of the divine? So, how can you now say that you are unable 
to understand the works of God and how a creature is engendered in 
its mother's womb? You were able to grasp the non-created, yea the 
very essence of God, yet you cannot grasp the works He performs each 
day, indeed the very works He performs for your benefit. I must 
conclude that you do not mean what you say; you are a deceitful knave, 
a vessel of blindness and lies. But let us not get carried away. 

To disfigure my arguments you say that I am a reviver of the base 
sect of Epicurus, buried already for many moons. So as not to let you 
go without an imprecation, may God afflict your tongue and the hand 
with which you wrote such words. And now I have a little job to do 
on you and I will show you that you and your fraternity are following 
in the footsteps of Epicurus, when you derive your satisfaction from 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


373 


sensual pleasure and deny divine justice. Is it not you who claim that 
the Sabbath is a day for pleasure and that it is a divine commandment 
and a good deed to come together with your wife, fill up your belly with 
food and the more often you do these things the better you carry out 
the commandment? To support this you adduce a verse from 
Yesa c yahu [Is. 58, 13], which you vainly misinterpret. Is it not just like 
you, for not only is sensuality your greatest pleasure, but you run riot 
with it in an Epicurean way, abusing the Sabbath, a day holy to God. 
It would have been more proper to abstain from things carnal in order 
with a cleaner body to sing a psalm to God and to contemplate the 
grandeur of His works, than to contaminate the body with an action 
from which impurity is derived and which clouds rather than clears 
the understanding, already weighed down by excessive eating and 
drinking and looking for ways and means to increase your appetite for 
inordinate lusting. Thus you have become gluttons for pleasure, pretex¬ 
ting a divine commandment to authorize doing things on the Sabbath 
which it would be more proper to avoid. 

I say you deny divine justice, because according to a tenet of yours, 
which you recite: 

All Yisra'el have a share in the world to come [...] [Mishna Sanhe¬ 
drin 10, 1]. 

And with the sole exception of some excommunicated miscreant, 
excluded from your midst, such as I, all the rest of you — either in one 
transport or the next, either by means of a prayer or by some other 
efficacious procedure — will end up in the world-to-come. As children 
of Yisra'el you have that privilege so secure, that you never lose a night's 
sleep worrying about it. But this belief of yours represents divine justice 
as a respecter of persons. Indeed it establishes one law for you and a 
different one for the others, though you are no whit better than they 
are, for by your actions you are eroding and fraying the nervous tissues 
of the Law and putting your confidence in vanity. But the Lord replies 
to you as follows: 

But unto the wicked God saith: "What hast thou to do to relate My 
statutes and why be ares t thou My covenant upon thy mouth? And thou 
hatest instruction and castest My words behind thee. When thou seest 
a thief, then art thou pleased with him, and with adulterers hast thou 
thy portion. Thou openest thy mouth for evil and thy tongue frameth 
deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; against thy 
mother's son thou utterest slander. These things hast thou done, and 
I kept silence: thou didst ween that I am like thyself: I will reprove 
thee, and set it in order before thine eyes.” [Ps. 50, 16-21]. 



374 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


All these things are found in you. Do you really think that just by 
having the Law upon your tongue, you can get away with it, and prac¬ 
tice with impunity your kind of "divine” justice? But the Law is telling 
you that you misrepresent her, that you will be judged by her and be 
confronted with all your misdoings. Thus the Law judges and condemns 
you and yet you are impervious to these judgements and, since you say 
that you believe in hell, it must be awaiting you. Anyone who so well 
deserves evil to befall him in this world, perforce deserves to have it 
befall him in the next, because in this world God promises bliss to the 
righteous and suffering to the wicked and the evils that befall one in 
this world must be harbingers of those that you claim exist in the world 
to come. But do not fool yourself into expecting future bliss, but rather 
cast away the life-style of Epicurus who derived all his satisfaction from 
sensual pleasure and denied God's providence. While you do not deny 
His providence, you insult His justice, for you pretend it to be a justice 
that favours persons. 


Chapter 11 

Replying to the Adversary’s Eleventh 
and Especially to his Alleged Evidence Concerning Bliss 
in the Hereafter 


After making certain erroneous affirmations which have already 
been disposed of, the sophist alleges that I presented two contradic¬ 
tory propositions, both of which I claimed to be true, because I said 
that the life-spirit dies before the person dies, thereby allowing for a 
period of time during which the person is both dead and not dead. 
Having pointed this out he triumphantly exclaims: "Let everyone take 
notice of how his erroneous opinion is self-destructive!” 

I shall now improve on his exclamation by one of my own: Let 
everyone take notice of the deceitfulness of his vile tongue and judge 
thereby the tortuosity, emptiness and baselessness of his reasoning! 
While I did say that the life-spirit dies first, this does not imply an 
intermediate period during which the person is not yet dead. I merely 
wished to convey, as is indeed logical, that the person dies as a result 
of the spirit being extinguished, contrary to those who state that a 
person dies and his spirit remains. Needless to say, death occurs the 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


375 


instant the life-spirit departs and this departure is, in fact, death. As 
Scripture says: 

His spirit will go forth, he shall return to his earth [...] [Ps. 146, 4]. 

Let no one be surprised by the treacherous and crooked ploys which 
are customary and natural to his insipid and vexatious mind. I am doing 
the utmost to spare myself useless labour, and shall therefore react 
and respond to no more than a few of his foolish ideas and instigations. 

In order to prove the existence of posthumous happiness and the 
world-to-come he adduces the following: 

"Unless I had believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of 
life” [Ps. 27, 13]. And 'Abigayil says to David: "[...] yet will the soul of 
my lord be bound in the bond of life with the Lord thy God [...]” 
[ISm. 25, 29]. And: "[...] no eye had seen God beside Thee, who would 
do thus for those that wait for Him” [Is. 64, 3 ] l , as if to say: the 
goodness that only God saw, that goodness God will make known to 
the person who hopes in Him. And: "[...] in order that it may be well 
with thee and that thou mayest lengthen days” [Dt. 22, 7]. So we have 
it from the mouth of the Lord: "in order that it may be well with thee” 
signifies this world and "that thou mayest lengthen days” refers to the 
world-to-come [...] On the other hand He threatens the wicked: "[...] cut 
off shall be cut off that soul, its iniquity is upon it” [Nm. 15, 31]. 
So we have it from the mouth of the Lord: "cut off” signifies from this 
world and "shall be cut off” means from the world-to-come. 


And thus he thinks he has proven a world-to-come! 

To each of his perversions of Scriptural verses we shall briefly reply 
by showing that there is no world-to-come in any of them. 

The bliss referred to by David in verse 13 of Psalm 27, is of this 
world, as the context of the psalm shows. In many of its verses he speaks 
of persecution, and of betrayal even by those closest to him. 
Simultaneously he finds consolation through his faith in God. He 
expresses his confident hope of divine deliverance and of being allowed 
to savour the goodness that life holds in store here below. 

Who is the man that desireth life, loveth days, that he may see 
happiness? Guard thy tongue from evil [...] [Ps. 34, 13-14]. 


i Da Silva quoting in Spanish the Ferrara Bible, has this clause of Is. 64, 3 in the 
singular: "for the one that waiteth.” For some reason da Costa in his Portuguese version 
of the same verse has this clause in the plural: "for those that wait.” Cf. Targum, loc. 
cit .; Septuagint, Is. 64, 4. As becomes obvious below, this change is without significance. 



376 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


The meaning of "life” and "happiness” is life and happiness 
here below! 

'Abigayil [ISm. 25, 29-35] correctly pointed out to David that if he 
would practice righteousness and do what is good in the eyes of God, 
his soul would be protected by Him from the power of Sa'ul and of all 
his other enemies, as if it were a bouquet held in His hands, while, on 
the other hand, God would spurn the souls of David's enemies and fling 
them away as one flings away a stone with a catapult and thus rid 
him of them. 

The verse in Yesa c yahu [Is. 64,3] says that God is one, faithful 
and powerful and that no one saw or knew a god other than the only 
God who in effect can reward, save and deliver those who trust and 
hope in Him. 

The verse in Deuteronomy [22, 7] signifies: Tn order that God may 
give you happiness and allow you to reach extreme old age.’ 

As for the expression: 

[...] cut off shall be cut off that soul [...] [Nm. 15, 31]. 

it describes premature death, as does the opening of Hizqiyahu’s paean 
upon recovering from his illness [Is. 38, 10]. 

Returning to the phrase "to lengthen days” there are many places 
in the Law where its meaning is made abundantly clear, for instance: 

[...] so that you may lengthen your days upon the land which the Lord 

your God gives you for a heritage [cf. Dt. 4, 40; 5, 16; etc.]. 

"Upon the land”, not "upon the heavens” are the days of human 
life lengthened or shortened (I do not believe that to prolong a life devoid 
of happiness would be called "lengthening days of life” but rather 
"lengthening days of death”), according to its capacity. My dishonest 
opponent lies when he says that "from the mouth of the Lord” we have 
the interpretation he gives; rather does it emanate from the mouth of 
this perverse commentator, for from the mouth of the Lord do not issue 
suchlike fantasies and follies. By this method of interpretation, when 
the Law says: 

[...] stoned will be stoned the ox [Ex. 21, 28] 

we ought to understand "stoned” to mean in this world; "will be stoned” 
to refer to the world-to-come. So we would never have done with stoning 
that ox! In reality, this kind of repetition of a word is used in Hebrew 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


377 


for effect, emphasis or to denote urgency. 0 to be rid of these deranged 
fantasts and the chore of having to reply to their foolishness! Nor is 
it any less foolish on their part to claim that there would have been 
no need for God to disclose the alleged punishments of the after-life. 
Not only would there be such a need, but just as it is impossible to 
imagine injustice in God, it is impossible to imagine that God would 
condemn a person to punishments about which he had never been 
warned, to be suffered in a world of whose existence he had never been 
informed. 


Chapter 12 

Replies to Sundry Assertions of the Adversary 


This reply addresses just a few of this rambling philosopher's 
stray irrelevancies; others, for brevity's sake, will have to remain 
unanswered. 

In chapter 12 he claims that "if man could find a way to regain the 
radical humour and fine substance which he is losing continually, he 
would always constitute the same being,” but, since no such remedy 
exists, he ultimately dies. Then comes the afterthought: "But what has 
all this to do with the soul, which by its very nature is immortal?” 

How is one to reconcile such opposite statements? This 
curmudgeon avers that man dies because his substance is spent and 
used up. That substance on which humans draw to live is none other 
than the soul, 1 which vivifies them. The human being dies as a result 
of this substance being spent and used up: nevertheless he is immortal! 
He goes on to assert: "Death is but the separation of the soul from the 
body and the return of each to its proper place.” This sounds as if the 
soul and the body were two friends who get together. After taking a 
short walk they see that it is time to go home and to bed. So they shake 
hands, take leave and separate. What a separation and what a return 
to one's place! We all know what the body turns into after the separa¬ 
tion; so how can the friends ever meet again? Moreover, he challenges 
me to prove that the soul was at one time dust if it is to "return” to 
dust. But no one ever claimed that human souls are dust or even that 
the souls of animals are dust. Nevertheless all agree that animals turn 
into dust when the soul that animates them is extinguished. So whatever 


l Da Silva never explained what he meant by "the radical humour and fine 
substance” which is slowly being used up in the course of life. Even if he had a human 



378 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


soul the animals were given by God, must have been taken from the 
essence and substance of the elements; and why should the human soul 
be any different? 

He also asks [in chapter 13] why 'Abraham, if he did not expect a 
reward in the world-to-come, would have gladly accepted to sacrifice 
his son and why the son would have allowed himself to be killed. 
'Abraham gladly accepted to sacrifice his son because he feared God 
and loved his son. 'Abraham knew that to disobey and contend against 
God would avail him nought, for who could save him from the hands 
of God? Father and son were both under divine jurisdiction, which could 
exact a greater price from them. So 'Abraham, an expert calculator, 
weighed the pros and cons and surrendered himself to God, which 
resulted in great profit for himself and for that son whom God had 
promised to bless and to whose question 'Abraham had confidently 
replied with the words: "God will provide” [Gn. 22, 8]. (What good 
instruction is found here for madmen who disobey God and imagine 
they can come out the winners, not realizing they will not escape out 
of His hands.) As for the son allowing himself to be killed, we must 
realize that he was but a child. Had he been a man endowed with the 
understanding and power of an adult, he might have considered the 
possibility of making himself scarce. In other words, had Yishaq been 
of age, God would not have demanded that sacrifice of 'Abraham, 
because it would not have been up to 'Abraham to make it. But as he 
was a minor, the merit was not Yishaq's, but the father's alone, and 
it was to him that God directly addressed the promise of reward, even 
though that reward would undoubtedly redound also to the son's advan¬ 
tage. This would not have been so if Yishaq's decision had been volun¬ 
tary, the considered action of a free man, who by surrendering himself 
to sacrifice, would indeed have earned more merit than his father. After 
all, love begins at home and, generally speaking, everyone loves himself 
first and others afterwards. 2 Even if we were to assume that the merit 
of the father in deciding to go through with this would be equal to that 
of the son, still it would have been proper for God to speak also with 


soul in mind, he covered himself — as da Costa well knows — by providing human beings 
with multiple souls, one of which could get used up without affecting the immortal one, 
of which he can say: "but what has all this to do with the soul?” (i.e., the immortal soul). 

2 This opinion can be disputed, especially in its generalization: instances of 
parents sacrificing themselves for their children are not unknown. 




'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


379 


the latter, in order to praise and reward the submission of his will, and 
not concentrate all His attention on the father. 

He continues in the same vein in chapter 14. Seeing himself 
confronted by so many Scriptural verses which clearly and expressly 
proclaim that no other life or bliss awaits humankind, and not having 
at his disposal any manly reply, he resorts to evasive subterfuge. He 
says that these verses which I adduced prove no more than that human 
beings die and that to back up such an obvious truth I had no need to 
cite so many texts. So he who shows proofs and reasons to this blind 
goat exerts himself in vain, for it jumps over all of them and, wiggling 
its ears, scampers off. 

Among other risible defences and explanations, we come upon the 
claim that if Iyob, when he says: 

[...] my eye will not again see happiness [Job 7, 7] 

was referring to bliss and the resurrection of the dead, 

it was the utterance of a man at the moment of his affliction and 
anguish. But when his friends reproach him, he repents and says: "In 
Whose hand is the soul of every living being and the spirit of all the 
flesh of man” [Job 12, 10]. Since he uses different words when refer¬ 
ring to the souls of animals and those of human beings, he clearly 
indicates the difference which he knows to exist between them, and 
declares that the human soul will live forever: "If he were to set His 
heart upon him, He would gather unto Himself his spirit and his breath. 
All flesh would perish together and man would return unto dust” [Job 
34, 14-15]. In this passage God consoles the righteous man and tells 
him that he will have his reward in the world-to-come and while all 
other creatures are consumed, only man, though he be buried under 
the dust, will again rise above it and live. 

So we are supposed to believe that Iyob came to regret his earlier 
outburst. And as proof this fine fellow cites a verse from another 
chapter, where Iyob, arguing with his friends, tells them that what they 
are saying is known to the donkeys, the birds of the sky, the earth itself 
and the fishes of the sea. 'For who does not know that God is Lord and 
Creator and that in His hand is the life of all creatures?’ So, far from 
recanting, in fact Iyob presses his argument ever more ardently upon 
his censorious friends. How stupid to suggest that his affliction would 
have impelled Iyob to deny the bliss of a world-to-come! Hope of such 
bliss would have held out for him the promise of consolation and of 
recompense for the merits to which he (Iyob) pretends when replying 
to his detractors. As to the claim that the words "soul” and "spirit” 



380 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


have distinct meanings, it is obvious that they are in fact used 
indiscriminately for animals and humans throughout Scripture. It 
would therefore be a shame to waste time on this matter. I will merely 
set out for this blockhead the true meaning of the verses in chapter 34: 

If He were to set His heart upon him, He would gather unto himself 
his spirit and his breath. All flesh would perish together and man would 
return unto dust [Job 34, 14-15] 

which he completely warps. 

In chapter 34 it is not Iyob who is speaking — as this prevaricator 
implies — but one of his friends. Nor is he consoling anybody: he is 
simply averring that a human being cannot bring God to trial (this fact 
was very well known to Iyob) and that if God were to summon the world 
to judgement and scrutinize its failings, the only result would be the 
end of humankind: 

If He were to set His heart upon him [...]. 

If God were to submit man to a thorough investigation and judge 
him according to his works: 

[...] He would gather unto Himself his spirit and his breath 

God would cause to cease his vital spirit and his breath; and once 
these cease: 

[...] all flesh would perish together and man would return unto dust 

all would be consumed and come to an end: no longer would there be 
a world, no longer would there be human beings. That the expression 
"to set one's heart” means "to examine carefully the work and its merit” 
is quite obvious and may be confirmed by other Scriptural verses: 

What is man that Thou shouldst take account of him ? and that Thou 
shouldst set Thy heart upon him? And that Thou shouldst visit him 
every morning, and consider him for a few moments? How long wilt 
Thou not depart from me [...]? [Job 7, 17-19]. 

'Man, O Lord, is a vessel full of ignorance and iniquity. Do not 
consider attentively his works, nor set Your heart upon them, because 
he will not pass muster under Your scrutiny.’ 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


381 


Similarly 'Abigayil said to David, at the time when he came to 
chastise her husband for his ungrateful and ungracious response: 

Let not My Lord, I pray thee, set his heart upon this wicked fellow 
Nabal, for as his name is, so is he: Nabal is his name and foolishness 
is with him [...] [1 Sm. 25, 25]. 

To "set one's heart upon” somebody is therefore equivalent to 
"examining the works” of that person and the correct explanation of the 
verse is the one just given. To reply to all the crooked and false explana¬ 
tions of deceptive tongues, there is neither paper nor life-span enough. 


Chapter 13 

Replies to More of the Adversary's Assertions and Shows 
in What Respect the Human Being is the Likeness of God 


In his chapter 15 the philosopher goes on to say that when a person 
is told to eat, though the addressee is a total human being, possessed 
of a soul, yet this communication does not pertain to his soul, for the 
soul neither eats nor drinks. He would have it that the soul of this form 
is so detached from its body that it does not participate in its affairs 
and is, as it were, serving time there. Next he will say whoever liberates 
the soul from its captivity is absolved from homicide, for by his act 
he has released the poor soul from its melancholy incarceration and 
allowed it to soar homewards. 

The blighter seems to have forgotten what his ancestors said in the 
desert, when they were complaining about the food with which the Lord 
was providing them: 

But now our soul is dry; our eyes see nothing but manna [Nm. 11, 6]. 

Nor does he remember that affliction of the soul is affliction of the 
whole body and that, conversely, the soul is not healthy when the body 
is ill. 

He continues by commenting on the verse: 


[...] a spirit which passeth and returneth not [Ps. 78, 39]. 



382 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


A thing that moves, says he, must be possessed of being, otherwise 
it could not move. O Sylvan Doctor Semu'el! — or rather Doctor Semu'el 
in the Thicket! — or, still better (or still worse, because you are so 
tiresome): plain Doctor Thickhead without the Semu'el, you have got 
it all wrong! What the verse is saying is that human beings are like a 
wind which blows and passes and that particular wind which passes 
does not come back to blow and pass a second time. In her set piece 
Yo'ab's stooge gave vent to the same thought: 

For we shall surely die and shall be as water spilt on the ground which 
cannot be gathered up again [....] [2Sm. 14, 14]. 

'We pass on and are not reconstituted, any more than spilt water 
is retrieved or the wind which passes returns again.’ Whereas the 
falsehood which you try to force upon this self-explanatory verse 
[Ps. 78, 39] stays behind and is preserved within you as in a jar. I skim 
over the graciousness (or lack of it) with which you allow that though 
the spirit will not return through its own steam, if God commands it 
to return, then there is no reason for it not to do so. Your deference 
and courtesy towards the Deity leave one speechless. 

He goes on to say in chapter 16 that if Epicurus had had a Law 
and had believed that God created man in His likeness, he would in 
no way have doubted the immortality of the soul, because he was not 
so deficient in discernment and philosophy as to deny the force of 
conclusive and convincing arguments. 

Unless malice had blinded this man, he could never have written 
so despicably. Whom could Epicurus in this day and age find to approve 
his judgement and philosophy, were it not for him? It was certainly 
with much reason that Epicurus, because of the dullness of his mind 
and doctrine, was called the ox among philosophers and one who now 
approves Epicurus' judgement should also be called an ox and a 
discredit to true philosophy. Epicurus held sensual pleasure to be the 
ultimate good. True discernment and philosophy teach us to regard 
peace, health and the means to preserve them as the greatest good. 
Sensual pleasure is the enemy of all these. Epicurus denied the existence 
of God and said that the world is a body which had no beginning: as 
it is now, it has always been. True discernment and philosophy teach 
that since nothing that lives has sufficient power and initiative to bring 
itself into existence, nor does any object that one sees with one's eyes 
have the property of creation, there must of necessity be a greater force 
which provides living entities with their existence as well as the 
property of maintaining their species by means of that same method 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


383 


used for their creation. And since among living entities not even the 
human, which is the principal one and a rational creature, has the power 
and initiative to bring itself into existence, much less so can any insen¬ 
sible and inanimate entity have that power and initiative. 

Thus, for any of these entities to exist, natural reason demands the 
intervention of an active principle or essence which had no need to 
derive its existence from anyone, incomprehensible to us because of 
the incapacity of the finite to comprehend the infinite. Now although 
this natural conclusion is reached by crystal-clear reasoning which only 
a fool can reject (as the Psalmist says: 

[...] The fool said in his heart: "There is no God” [...] [Ps. 14, 1]) 

our philosopher (a discredit to all philosophers) is not ashamed to say 
that Epicurus was not so lacking in judgement and philosophy as to 
deny the force of arguments. Forsooth, I do not know what is going on 
in this person's head. In the presence of other people I overheard him 
say (I am speaking the truth, so help me God) that "concerning the crea¬ 
tion of the world there are great problems.” So I asked him what kind 
of problems, seeing that man was created. He replied that man was not 
the world. And when I asked him again, with more insistence, he simply 
said: "when.” This poor fellow is a reader of Aristotle and Aristotle 
affirmed that the world was eternal and denied creation, claiming that 
generation is infinite, and that there was no first man. But since it is 
clearly necessary for there to have been a first man from whom all 
generation sprang, he apparently fell out with his master and it is not 
surprising that he did so, for after all his discernment is such that he 
found discernment in Epicurus. 

Concerning the argument [as to whether man could be described 
as created in God's image if he were not immortal], we have already 
said that man is not the image and likeness of God in the way that the 
son is the image and likeness of his father. So he who attributes to man, 
just because of that word "image,” the immortality which is found in 
God, is labouring in vain. For if the argument held true for immortality, 
it would also hold true for wisdom and for power. Since the limitations 
of human wisdom are so manifest and since human power is even more 
circumscribed than human wisdom, the adversary misunderstands the 
expression "God's image” which Scripture attributes to humankind. 
Man is limited in life-span, in knowledge, in power and yet for its dura¬ 
tion his life symbolizes the image and likeness of God in some respects. 
That is why we put "almost similar” — the expression which the 
adversary impeaches — in order to show that the word "image” is not 



384 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


to be taken in its first and literal meaning. This is precisely what the 
Psalmist says: 

Yet Thou hast made him a little less than God, and Thou hast crowned 
him with glory and honour. Thou makest him to have dominion 
over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet 
[Ps. 8, 6-7]. 


The Psalmist understands human beings to be in God's image in 
so far as they hold unrivalled sway over all other creatures on earth 
(including wild beasts whom they subdue by cunning) [cf. Gn. 1, 26]. 
Indeed, many animals receive their sustenance from humans and eat 
out of their hand. Elsewhere the Psalmist likens them to God in respect 
of their role as administrators of justice; — judges often being entitled 
"gods”: 

[...] God stands in the company of God; He will judge among the gods 
[Ps. 82, 1]. 

Heads of household in a way could also be said to resemble God. 
So we have many instances wherein human beings may be likened to 
God. Consequently, the words of Scripture may be understood without 
recourse to fantasies. Here we should note the explanation our adver¬ 
sary gave 1 the text which says that 'Adam engendered [Set] in his own 
likeness, after his image [Gn. 4, 3], claiming that these words refer only 
to moral qualities, not to physical composition. So we see that there, 
where the words are so obviously literal, referring to a son who is the 
true image of his father, he understands them to refer merely to the 
moral qualities. And here, where there is no question of the resemblance 
being more than an imitation of God in one or another aspect, he insists 
on interpreting them quite literally, as if the human soul were possessed 
of the entire range of divine attributes. 2 But man is not an exact copy 
of God, either as regards his body or his soul; nor did Scripture claim 
that he is, nor did it separate soul from body and restrict the likeness 
to the soul. Rather about the whole of man, consisting of body and soul 
or, to put it better, of an animated body, did Scripture say that he was 
like unto God; and, in what respect, we have already explained. 

At the end he says: "Lime is similar to snow, but lime is not snow. 
Thus man is similar to God, but man is not God.” Another installment 


1 In da Silva's Chapter 9. 

2 Da Costa writes de tudo o que Deus tem, whereby he attributes more to da Silva 
than the latter's theory necessarily implies. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


385 


of his ravings! If man is no more the image of God than lime is the image 
of snow, all raving is stilled. But if you should say: "lime is similar to 
snow; snow melts in the sun; therefore, lime also melts in the sun,” you 
are arguing in your usual way: "man is similar to God; God is infinite; 
therefore, man is also infinite.” Make up your mind: before you claimed 
that when one object is likened to another, it must possess all the 
qualities of the object to which it is being likened and for that reason 
the human being must possess all the attributes of God. Now, as if 
unmindful of your previous reasoning, you bring in examples of lime 
and snow, whose whiteness is their only common feature, being in 
substance and nature totally disparate. 


Chapter 14 

The Human Soul Does Not Have a Specific Name 
to Distinguish it from the Animal Soul 


In chapter 17 our opponent sets up a chair for Hebrew studies and 
explains that the human soul is called nesama and the animal soul nefes, 
and that while it is true that the human soul is also sometimes called 
nefes, there is a special reason for this, of which he will apprise us 
in good time. 

These wondrous discoveries have gone to his head and they now 
form part of his syllabus! On the strength of them he holds forth, calls 
people nasty names and fancies himself the fount of all wisdom. We, 
however, will show him that it was not to his advantage to churn these 
waters, which we had purposely left tranquil for fear of the mud that 
would be dredged up. 

The word nesama means "breath, puff, spirit” and may be applied 
to any living thing possessed of respiration: 

And all flesh perished [...] All in whose nostrils was the breath of the 
spirit of life [nismat ruah hayyim], of all that was on the dry land, died 
[Gn. 7, 21-22]. 

The word nefes signifies "soul, animated body” and is applied 
equally to humans and to beasts. It is used every time that the concept 
of "soul” is evoked. 



386 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Ruah denotes "wind, spirit.” Scripture alternates between these 
words according to the particular nuance it wishes to bring out 
— whether it be the breath, the soul or the spirit by which humans 
live — but these fabulists have invented a theory which makes each of 
those terms signify a distinct soul. Thus they make human beings out 
to comprise three souls, so fragmented and autonomous that, as some 
would have it, at least two of them can inhabit separate bodies. 1 They 
back up these arcana with very amusing anecdotes. These must be the 
kind of mysteries this fellow has in mind when he now says that the 
human soul is also sometimes called nefes (you always come up with 
a new one!), but that he will only give the reason when it suits him. 
As he is too absorbed at the moment, divulging the secret will have to 
wait upon his leisure. Or maybe the reason he has up his sleeve is 
another of those disreputable ones, which can only come out disguised 
and under cover of darkness. In daylight, their shame would be exposed. 

Carrying on with his teaching, for which he is so ill-suited, he says: 
"Sit up, take notice and learn.” Poor chap! What is it that you want 
to teach me? Don't you know that when I was nine years old my teacher 
compared me to a fellow-student as tall as you are and embarrassed 
him in my presence? Well, go ahead and speak your piece; I stand 
to attention. With an introduction like that to put one on one's toes, 
you must have great revelations in store, remote and concealed from 
general view. 

Here is what he says: 

The difference between the corruptible human body and the nesama, 
or immortal and divine soul, was so great, that it seemed inconceivable 
for a union to exist between such opposites. Hence, the Platonists, for 
example, denied it, as we saw above. Lest we too should be incredulous 
of the reality of such a union, it was necessary for Sacred Writ to show 
it forth, by saying, as it did, that God inspired in human beings a 
nesama . If not for the Bible telling us this, we would suppose it to be 
repugnant to an immortal nesama to unite with the body and in so alien 
an environment to activate un-bodylike functions such as perception 
and reasoning. To dispel any lingering doubts Scripture adds: “and was 
for living soul.” It does not say: “was living soul” or “was nefes haya ” 
(which is the soul of brutes), but rather “was for soul” or “instead of 
soul,” as if to say: 'even though the nesama is of such refinement that 
its proper function is to perceive, it is nevertheless not above carrying 
out in the human body the function which the nefes performs in the 


1 It sounds as though da Costa means here to aim his irony at the cabbalistic 
hierarchy of souls. Some cabbalists speak of four souls in ascending order: ruah, nefes, 
nesama and a fourth one, not named by da Costa, yehida. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


387 


bodies of brutes, such as to animate, to feel, to move, etc., as Iyob said: 
"[...] and the breath of the Almighty gives me life” [Job 33, 4] where 
the word "breath” translates nesama. With this true explanation all 
the staggering and tottering of this confused blind man, etc. 

0 you brazen dunce! Although you have been told this by me quite 
often, you merit to hear it again and again. Do you take me for an idiot, 
that can be fobbed off with a sop? Was it to listen to this that you 
exhorted me to take heed? Is this what you want me to learn? So I say 
to you again: you have no shame. Having wasted so much time in 
copying out your arguments, am I now to waste any more of it replying 
to you? Certainly it would be best to leave you with no response and, 
in fact, what I am about to say on the subject amounts to little more 
than that. 

I have already said that nesama does not literally mean "soul”, and 
even less "immortal and divine soul,” but rather "breath,” "puff,” and 
"puff with which one fans a flame,” as in the verse: 

[...] the breath [ nismat ] of the Lord like a stream of sulphur blazing 
in it [Is. 30, 33] 

where we find the same word [nismat] as in the story of the creation 
of man [Gn. 2, 7]. Now in the creation of man Scripture needs two words 
nismat hayyim ("puff of lives”), because the word nismat by itself 
expresses no more than "puff”, and all puffs are not necessarily puffs 
of life, just as all spirits are not spirits of life, but merely those which 
have animal lifegiving properties. Thus we see what an arrant lie it is 
to say that the word nesama by itself denotes "immortal and divine 
soul.” That this word in fact connotes no more than the word ruah 
[which is never translated "soul”] is a well-known fact as witness the 
following verse: 

All the while my breath [ nismati ] is in me and the spirit [ruah] of God 
is in my nostrils [Job 27, 3]. 

Here the words are inverted. Job says that in his nostrils he has 
ruah , whereas Genesis 2, 7 says that God insufflated nesama into the 
human nostrils. So we see that the words nesama and ruah are inter¬ 
changeable, and whether one translates them by "spirit,” "puff” or 
"breath,” it all amounts to the same thing. This fact is further borne 
out by Yehezqel 37, 6, where it is not a nesama that is summoned to 
enter into the corpses, but rather a ruah , and through the ruah they 



388 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


come alive (it being understood that the whole verse is meant 
figuratively). 

Now, as to our adversary's reference to the Platonist position, we 
believe they were quite right to deny that any kind of union could exist 
between the body and a soul which is a substance separate from the 
body and independent of it. Those who would like to refute their objec¬ 
tions and respond to them, are unable to do so. 

Impervious to what he said earlier, this blunderbuss trips himself 
up by saying now that the nesama ("immortal and divine soul”) carries 
out in the human body all the functions which the nefes performs in 
animals. For what he says now implies that man is vivified by no other 
soul than the immortal one. If that were so, he would never die, because 
with an immortal soul the creature that it activates should be immortal 
too. 2 But what he had claimed earlier was that the engendered 
creature receives from the seminal properties of its male progenitor 
the same levels of soul possessed by brutes. So if that is the case then 
the nesama ("immortal soul”) does not carry out the same function as 
the nefes, because the nefes — which is the soul that the engendered 
creature had received from its progenitor — was already carrying out 
that function before the nesama entered the body. It is impossible to 
conceive of two souls, one of them mortal, the other immortal — totally 
opposite qualities — carrying out the same function. Yet I suppose he 
would say that, since both are able to carry it out equally well, in the 
case of one of them weakening, the other, that did not weaken, could 
hold the fort and direct operations in the interim. This is no doubt the 
kind of fairy tale that we were supposed to sit up for and learn from 
and these are the deceptions whereby bogus, self-appointed teachers 
manipulate and subject the simple-minded to their domination. Woe 
to us who are detained and worn down by such fatuous trifles and woe 
to you, O wretched opponent! May you know fatigue in life and in death, 
as you tire out others in vain! 

He further goes on to say that for love of the Law and a future 
reward, Israel renounces advantages, pleasures and tranquillity; lives 
under restrictions, in poverty, fear and exile. How benighted can one 
be not to realize one's true condition, and to believe that all those things 
that one is denied could be attained were one but to pit oneself against 
God and His power! Not even the examples he has before him and those 


2 Whereas da Silva's self-contradiction as to which soul carries out the animal 
functions in the human body is readily discernible, the inference from immortality of 
the soul to necessary immortality of the body is less so. 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


389 


which he can see every day in his own house suffice for him to perceive 
that the thoughts of men are of no consequence and that God's will shall 
prevail [cf. Pr. 19, 21]. If human endeavour could prevail against 
Providence, then the Law would be uttering empty threats when it 
predicts that, to avenge their breaking the covenant, the people would 
be scattered throughout the earth and pursued by the sword. 3 But 
history has vindicated the truth of those predictions and he himself is 
a living testimony of that truth, for though he and his ancestors swerved 
from the path and adopted the ways of other people as a means to obtain 
the honours and wealth he speaks of, they were not able to ward off 
divine vengeance. 4 That our nation can never disavow or disguise its 
origin must have been decreed by God, not merely so that those ancient 
predictions of the Law be fulfilled to the letter, but also to demonstrate 
thereby to the world the truth of His Law, His word and His unity. 

In conformity with his excellent good sense and belief that it is in 
the hands of human beings whether they will enjoy themselves, the 
wicked man says that I would be better off leading a "high life,” seeing 
that I negate an after-life. 

O you ignoble Epicurean! What then is that which you call "high 
life”? Is it renouncement of the fear of God and giving oneself over to 
vice? Is it living a life of sin and coming to grief at the end? Now if 
it were in your hands to lead a "high life,” why, pray, do you not cleanse 
yourself of the leprosy you carry around with you? Why do you not 
cure yourself, since you are a physician, and why do you go around 
disfigured and faceless? Ah well, wicked fellow, you are no doubt 
incapable of giving salutary advice to others, seeing you have none to 
give yourself. I can hardly expect someone who carries hell around with 
him to save me from hell — for just to look at you is to see hell. If to 


3 In all probability an imprecise reference to an exegesis of Dt. 28, 64-67 and Ezek. 
21, 14-15 found in Samuel Usque's Portuguese masterpiece Consolagao as tribulagoes de 
Israel ("Consolation for the Tribulations of Israel”) (Book III, chapters 28-31) (1st edition 
1553; reprinted at Amsterdam probably in 1611). Usque assumes these curses to be 
prognostications referring specifically to Portugal ("the end of the earth”), the General 
Conversion of the Portuguese jews in 1497, the massacre of the New Christians at Lisbon 
in 1506 and the establishment of the Portuguese Inquisition in 1538. The Inquisition, Usque 
explains, is God's instrument to punish the Portuguese jews for accepting Christianity, 
"even though it was under duress.” 

4 Probably another reference to "Consolation for the Tribulations of Israel,” this 
time to the unnumbered chapter in Book III where Usque writes that the Portuguese 
New Christians "feigned Christianity with all their might in order to save their life and 
property.” Perhaps he is referring to some specific misfortune which befell a member 
of da Silva's family in Portugal as a result of Inquisitorial persecution. 



390 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


be in hell means to be well supplied with vermin, stenches and itches, 
to have one's skin glued to one's bones and one's nerves devoid of flesh, 
then you are hell incarnate. What is in store for defunct and senseless 
corpses, you experience during your lifetime. 

My life, on the other hand, seems no longer worth living in your 
eyes, since I am not part of your band. But it is precisely because I do 
not enter into the company of the distorters that I am blessed. May God 
my Creator, under Whose protection I place myself, keep me in my 
present state until my dying day. Surely I would not wish evil upon 
myself, yet you want to deliver me from the hell in which I live. As to 
the accounting which you claim that God will demand of me afterwards, 
let it not worry you too much. May God have compassion on me in this 
life, as He does, and I shall pay in the hereafter the offences which you 
attribute to me. May you suffer hell in this life — as you are doing 
anyway — and afterwards receive the reward for the goodness which 
is not in you. 

When blacks, whites, Kaffirs and Chinese, without any distinction, 
soar up to heaven, only you will remain here below. I do not want you 
to go up there (one day I shall be the keeper of its keys because of you). 
I have two reasons for this. Firstly because, due to the weight of your 
oppressiveness, heaven would doubtless collapse on us and all would 
be chaos again. The second reason is that since you are the Atlas who 
upbears the firmament (a good indication of this — besides your claim 
to the role — is the way your head has come down so low onto your 
bosom that you seem to be hiding it), with your departure the same 
catastrophe would befall us. In view of the alternative, I must have you 
remain here below. 

The romance writer whom you reproach me for citing against you 
— you say that I should be ashamed to have done so; may he confound 
and shame you! — is a poet, not a mere poetaster. He knew more while 
asleep than you in your waking hours. The rest of your snide remarks 
I shall let pass because I am fed up with you. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


391 


Chapter 15 

Replies to Several Points of His Chapters 18, 19, 20 


In his chapter 18 our opponent says that the words Mose addressed 
to God: 


[Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin but if not] blot me out [...] 
from Thy book which Thou hast written [Ex. 32, 32] 

do not furnish proof for the immortality of the soul. The explanation 
of this verse which he offers instead, is just the kind one could have 
expected from him and his coaches. However, in spite of what he says, 
this verse is regularly adduced as an argument for immortality. If he 
is unaware of this, let him ask around. In fact, some of those very people 
who believe that Mose was referring to the Book of the Living as they 
call it, comment that Mose, like a son who begs his father on behalf 
of a servant, was confident that God would grant forgiveness to Yisra'el, 
and thus did not really contemplate being excised from that book. But 
the true meaning of the verse is the one that we already gave. 1 

Our opponent goes on to say that if Mose did not have in mind the 
existence of an afterlife, it would have been folly on his part to ask God 
for death, which he could have inflicted on himself and, therefore, 
nothing can explain Mose's refraining from suicide other than a reluc¬ 
tance to commit an act which could prejudice his chances for obtaining 
a share in the after-life. 

Anyone capable of such an idea cannot be reckoned a human being 
nor even a beast, because there is no animal that does not love its own 
life and that does not flee from anything that might imperil it. Our 
adversary should be reckoned among those frantic persons who, having 
taken leave of their senses, jump into the water or into the fire. With 
this creature I have to negotiate, one that says it is folly to ask God 


l Curiously, da Costa and da Silva are for once in agreement on the interpreta¬ 
tion of a biblical verse and yet begrudge each other the compliment. Both understand 
the "blotting out of the book" to be a request for the end of earthly existence. 



392 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


for death while knives are available and cross-beams and ropes in 
supply. 

0 witless adversary, how I wish I had done with you! Do not try 
to associate Mose with your depravity, nor was it because he really 
wanted death that he uttered those words! He much preferred life to 
death and his soul was not suffering in his body. You can go ahead and 
hang yourself if that is the only way your soul can be freed from its 
anguish. Good and judicious people do not have recourse to your insane 
expedient. 

Our adversary goes on to condemn the explanation we gave of 
the verse: 


Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His pious ones 
[Ps. 116, 15] 


where we said: "The Lord does not esteem the life of His righteous ones 
so little as to be indifferent to their death.” He considers the meaning 
of this verse to be that the death of the pious is pleasing, and highly 
esteemed by the Lord, because it is pleasant for Him to receive them 
in His glorious abode and to reward them for their works. The true 
explanation is the one that we gave. We proposed it at the time, not 
because it really affected our position, but solely to counter their false 
interpretation. But our frenzied opponent persists in his frenzy and 
there is no rousing him out of it even with lashes. In that psalm David 
is not thanking God for having taken his life from him, but rather for 
having allowed him to escape death. He is saying that the death of the 
righteous is very costly, dear, high-priced in the eyes of the Lord; not 
"pleasant,” as this barbarian would have it — nor does the word yaqar 
connote such "pleasantness.” Things that are highly valued are called 
dear, difficult to find, and their opposites are called vile. This was our 
intention in saying that God values the life of His righteous and, conse¬ 
quently, their death is dear and costly in His eyes. He sets so high a 
price on their life, lifting it, as it were, out of the reach of the wicked 
who seek to subjugate them. This is also the meaning of the verse which 
speaks of the righteous king who would come to the aid of the poor 
and needy: 


He will redeem their soul from deceit and violence and precious [ve- 
yeqar\ shall their blood be in his sight [Ps. 72, 14] 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


393 


and in the same vein David said to Sa'ul: 


And behold, as thy soul was exalted 2 this day in my eyes, so let my 
soul be exalted in the eyes of the Lord and let Him deliver me from 
all anguish [ISm. 26, 24]. 

But our adversary's explanation is in keeping with everything else 
that proceeds from his obtuse head. Nor does he disappoint when he 
comes to the verse in Iyob: 

If He set His heart upon him, He would gather to Himself his spirit 
and his breath [Job 34, 14]. 

This verse he explains to mean that something is gathered up by 
God from man, which then takes on being and is taken into His protec¬ 
tion. I have explained this verse above (in chapter 12) and it does not 
imply more than the verse: 

[...] if Thou but removeth their spirit, they will perish [...] [Ps. 104, 29] 

which speaks also of the other animals, whose spirit God removes. It 
in no way follows that after having been taken away from their bodies 
these spirits possess being. What the psalmist calls removal, is extinc¬ 
tion. Life — the vital spirit which is fed to the living organism — is 
brought to an end by God. 

In chapter 19 he blusters on with his fanciful belief that the dead 
reply to those who interrogate them. He will not admit that such 
pretended communications are but tricks and hoaxes produced by 
witchcraft, because, according to him, the very fact that the Law forbids 
consulting the dead, implies the reality of such communication. As if 
the prohibition to consult the dead implies that the dead are able to 
answer! A person who makes such logical deductions will no doubt also 
claim that the gods of the gentiles are gods, not merely in the minds 
of their adherents, but real gods, for the Law says: 

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me [Ex. 20, 3]. 

The rest of his extravagances on this topic merit no comment. We 
have adequately demonstrated that the dead are conscious of nothing. 


2 Da Costa's purpose in quoting this verse is not altogether clear, since it does 
not contain the word yaqar ("precious”). 



394 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


He goes on to say that 'Elisa c stretched himself out on that boy to 
prepare and warm up his cold limbs for resuscitation. It sounds as if 
'Elisa c wanted to purge the boy! But in that case he might have 
administered a potion to stir his humours before incubating him, as 
it were. Evidently this warming-up process is the counterpart of what 
they claim goes on when worms are brought up to heaven to be heated 
in preparation for human souls to be implanted in them. 3 Oh, what 
infamous medication! 0 luckless patient, who would hope to be 
resuscitated by means of your remedies! 

In his chapter 20, to show that the righteous are not rewarded in 
this life, our opponent cites among others the martyrdom of Yirmeyahu 
the prophet in Egypt. Anything can be expected of the heirs of those 
who constantly rebelled against God and against His faithful servants 
and ministers, pelting the best among them with stones. Nevertheless, 
to me it seems unlikely that Yirmeyahu was martyred. 4 Rather does 
it appear to me from his book that he was granted a safe-conduct by 
God which shielded him from would-be attackers. If that safe-conduct 
was ever rescinded, it could only be because in the first place it had 
been granted conditionally. God might have said to him that if he 
betrayed his mission, he would be crushed in view of the people. Barring 
such stipulation, God's word could not fail, as it never failed 'Abraham, 
Yishaq and Ya c aqob, nor any righteous person. 5 

Another example of a righteous person who did not receive his 
reward on earth our antagonist finds in king Yosiyahu, who died from 
a wound sustained in battle. But he should have mentioned the part 
about Yosiyahu not listening to the king of Egypt. For history 
records 6 how that king spoke to Yosiyahu in the name of God. He said 
that he had no quarrel with Yosiyahu and was not sent out against him. 
We have already replied to our opponent that the ways of God and His 
judgements are righteous, even when inscrutable. If this should not 


3 When he speaks of worms being brought up to heaven, da Costa is presumably 
having another bash at metempsychosis. 

4 Marginal comment by da Costa: "I do not believe your stories.” On the 
apocryphal source of these "stories,” cf. our first note on da Silva's chapter 20. 

5 Da Costa conveniently refrains from commenting on Zechariah, cited by da Silva 
as an example of the martyrdom of a saint to whom Scripture attributes no wrongdoing 
(2Chr. 24, 20-21), and who thus poses a serious challenge to da Costa's theodicy as presented 
throughout most of this chapter. However, he seems to backtrack when he brings in the 
notion of "God's unfailing word,” as if to imply that there is room in his system for virtuous 
people to suffer so long as they were not recipients of a specific promise of divine succour, 
such as Jeremiah and the three Patriarchs. 

6 Da Costa is referring to the Chronicler's version (2 Chr. 35, 21-22). 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


395 


suffice him and he is still unwilling to submit to the Law and to its true 
doctrine which proclaims and promises during this life weal to the 
righteous and woe to the wicked, and if he believes that Yisra'el does 
not deserve the punishment which it is undergoing and, finally — since 
he considers himself judge of the works and merits of everyone (whom 
he does not know) — if it seems to him that the world is poorly governed, 
then he has no other choice but to deny divine providence once more, 
as he has already done many times — imitating therein the excellent 
example of other blind, foolish men — and to dismiss the Law. 

God permits many things for which only He knows the explana¬ 
tion. If someone should ask me the reason for God's actions, what 
reason could I give him about that which is hidden from me? God does 
not consult me. Meek is the dove and meek is the sheep, yet the one 
sometimes falls victim to the bird of prey and the other to the wolf. 
All are God's creatures, of which He is Lord and, as Scripture says: 

God made everything for His own purpose [...] [Pr. 16, 4]. 

God, in His grandeur, wisdom and power, created all this variety 
of creatures. Who is to question Him on the justice of His works? 

Hark! Is that a hunt whose clamour I hear? Many a wolf is going 
to pay for the blood of the sheep which it lapped up. That preditor's 
habit of hiding in the shrubbery is evidence of its bad conscience, which 
does not allow it to come out into the open. So do the sins of the wicked 
shatter their confidence and their conscience accuses and torments 
them: this is part of their punishment. 

If our opponent should reply that just as the mind is unable to 
fathom God's providence, it is incapable of fathoming His plans for the 
dead, then I say to him: "humbug!” What God revealed and made known 
to us concerning man's fate at death we are quite capable of understan¬ 
ding and, in fact, reason alone could have attained and grasped it, even 
had it not been revealed. But that which Scripture says is reserved to 
God alone, such as "to know the hearts and to give unto each accor¬ 
ding to his works”, [Jer. 17, 9-10)] that is for God to do, for only He knows 
and it is beyond human ken. 

Finally we should like to ask our opponent which of the following 
two fates he considers more enviable. That of the horse who in the prime 
of life was pampered and used in the prince's service and, turning lame 
in his old age, was sold to a wagoner who loaded him with heavy 
burdens and, goading him on when he was no longer able to move, made 
him bite the dust or that of the donkey who spent his working days in 
the steady service of the same caring coal-merchant? To be sure (we 



396 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


are not even awaiting our opponent's reply), the fate of the donkey is 
more enviable; and that is the fate of many a one in this world. With 
this we have replied to several of those maxims of his. The prosperous 
are not the ones to be most envied, but those who live out their lives 
in peace and tranquillity. 

Our opponent goes on to deny that God visits the sin of the father 
upon the son. To prove that God does not do so, he alleges that the 
Law 7 prescribes that a son shall not die for his father. This argument 
is worthless for it is based on false premisses. God knows under what 
circumstances justice may be served by visiting the sins of fathers upon 
their children, but here below justice would not be served if human 
law-courts were empowered to sentence a son to death for a crime 
which his father committed. The sets of criteria are different in the two 
systems. 8 

As for innocent Hebei suffering at the hands of Kayin, although 
God did not order Kayin to kill Hebei, admittedly He refrained from 
tying Kayin's hands or from deflecting the fatal blow by a special act 
of grace. But we dare our opponent to show that God committed an 
injustice by not intervening and that He could not have had good cause 
for allowing the murder to take place. God announced to David that 
as a punishment for his sin a member of his own household would be 
used as an instrument against him [cf. 2Sm. 12, 11]. Is making a son 
to act wickedly by rising up against his father not an example of visiting 
the sin of the father on the son? Go and gainsay what God Himself has 
declared! We do not want to waste more time replying to so many 
hollow affirmations made by one who does not know which way he is 
going and who invariably flees from the truth and the straight path. 


7 Da Costa uses the definite article (a Lei), by which term he generally means the 
Pentateuch. Does this intimate that da Costa really took the words "a son shall not die 
for his father” to be Mosaic and specifically a paraphrase of Dt. 24,16? That might explain 
his use of the definite article ("the Law”). However, he is in fact relying on da Silva, who 
quotes Ezek. 18, and introduces his citation by the words: "it is a falsity against that 
law which prescribes (...) using for "law” the word lei without an article. Cf. our second 
note in da Silva's chapter 20. 

8 Although da Costa here intuits that the doctrine of inherited responsibility may 
have different application in a human tribunal as opposed to the all-knowing Divine system 
of retribution and compensation, nevertheless he does not go so far as to explain the 
apparently conflicting scriptural texts as referring respectively to the heavenly and earthly 
courts. Dt. 24, 16 has been taken as a prescription for human judges — a tradition going 
at least as far back as 2Kgs. 14, 6 and reinforced by the deuteronomic context. Ezek. 18, 
on the other hand, is widely assumed to be descriptive of Providential justice, an assump¬ 
tion not necessarily borne out by much of the context. It could be seen as a call for 
temperance on the part of human judges. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


397 


Chapter 16 

Points out Various Errors Made by the Adversary 
in his Chapters 21, 22 and 23 


In his Chapter 21 our adversary goes on to say that in Psalm 16, 11: 

Let me know the path of life [...] 

David speaks of the voyage after death when God would show him the 
path that leads to heaven and to the company of the angelic hosts. Not 
a bad interpretation, considering how little that path is used and that 
there are no cart-wheel ruts to follow! The poor corpse might easily 
lose its way and could do with some directions! But even guidance might 
not suffice to get it to its destination, for the corpse might balk at the 
steepness of the climb or not find the pluck to scale such heights on 
its own. 

In his Chapter 22 our adversary claims that the dead of whom 
Yehezqel speaks really did come back to life and that Robi Joseph the 
Galilean went so far as to claim that these revived corpses migrated 
to the Land of Israel, married and had sons and daughters. That the 
Galilean should say such a thing is not surprising and that this 
blockhead felt obliged to reproduce it verbatim is even less surprising, 
once the Galilean had said it. Our opponent's argument runs as follows: 
if it were not true that these corpses actually came back to life, then 
that which is being exemplified would be false, because the example 
was false. Our obtuse opponent fails to realize that it was but a vision, 
and in a vision did the prophet see the whole parable, not with the pair 
of eyes which look out beneath the forehead. So it was not with those 
two organs that he saw a field full of bones, much less bones coalescing 
to form bodies. 

The verse from Yesa c yahu: 

The dead will not live, the departed will not rise [...] [Is. 26, 14] 

after declaring it to be self-explanatory, our opponent proceeds to make 
it refer to the people of all nations on earth. He claims that these, at 
their death, are forever extinguished, and that they will remain under 



398 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


the earth without so much as a memory of them surviving and that the 
world-to-come and the resurrection, on the other hand, are the exclusive 
prerogative of Yisra'el. 

Verily, if there were no other proof against the falsehoods and 
dreams of these pernicious blind men, their own declarations would 
suffice to confound them. Earlier on he argued that the attributes of 
understanding and of will, which are inherent in humans, prove the 
soul's immortality. Well then, pursuing his own original argument, any 
soul in which is to be found this understanding and will must be 
immortal. In any rational soul is to be found understanding and will: 
therefore any rational soul, according to him, ought to be immortal. 
Now, if there is no evidence of any substantial difference between one 
human soul and another and, according to their theory, the souls of 
all peoples and nations are annihilated at death, then they must admit 
that the same fate awaits their own souls. But of course the true 
explanation of the verse is the one we offered. 

Nor will God ultimately make an end of all the nations, as our oppo¬ 
nent blindly derives from the verse: 

[...] for of all the nations will I make an end [...] [Jer. 46, 28]. 

What God is saying here is that even if — against all possibility — 
He were to make an end of every national identity, still would He not 
make an end of Yisra'el. This is an idiomatic construction very common 
in Scripture. 1 Our opponent's interpretation is absolutely mad. 

He next deals with our handling of the verse: 

[...] I know that my Redeemer liveth, and last shall stand on the dust 

[Job 19, 25]. 

He states that he does not wish to use this verse (which is the one 
customarily adduced to prove resurrection) for his thesis. Instead he 
instructs us further in Hebrew, pointing out that the verb shall stand 
is in the third, not the first person, and that we adopted the Latin 
version's erroneous rendering of that verb in the first person. He is 
lying, because the best Latin versions (Pagnino) do adopt the third 


l Da Costa is obviously referring to the construction where a subordinate clause 
introduced by the Hebrew word ki is followed by the main clause, introduced by the 
letter vav. In this type of sentence the word ki has the meaning "even though” and the 
vav means "nevertheless.” Cf. Mesudot David, ad loc.. 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


399 


person and originally so did we. 2 Yet we had still not completely 
made up our mind. But, since it all comes down to the same thing and 
it really makes little difference whether the verse is read I shall stand 
or my flesh shall stand, we opted for the first person. 3 Yet for all that 
we were still undecided about leaving it in the first person. What finally 
tipped the balance, was firstly the desire to cut the ground from under 
the feet of those who believe that use of the first person is tantamount 
to an affirmation of resurrection by showing them that the one does 
not follow from the other and, secondly, for stylistic reasons. So let 
this miserable Hebrew teacher undeceive himself and realize that he 
cannot confuse us with any more of his nefes-nesama stories because 
we are perfectly capable of discovering the information we need. 

He goes on to wonder why, instead of adopting some erroneous 
Latin translation [of the Hebrew word ' aharon ], we interpreted it to 
mean the final end of Iyob's illness and affliction, thereby displaying 
a lack of regard and respect for all authority. This is the kind of thing 


2 As we point out in our Introduction, 3, da Costa's manuscript quires, as 
published by da Silva, contain the mistranslation: "I know that my Redeemer liveth and 
at last I shall stand [ estarei ] on the dust” [Job 19, 25]. Taken to task for this by da Silva, 
da Costa changed every occurrence of estarei in (1624).II.2 to estara ("it will stand”). 
Of course da Costa avoids revealing this emendation, for to do so would be tantamount 
to throwing in the towel. Yet he does not deny ever having written estarei — in fact, he 
openly admits it — although he could easily have accused da Silva of doctoring his text. 
Da Costa may be an equivocator, but he is no prevaricator. Da Silva, on the other hand, 
is well aware of the fact that da Costa never relies on the Vulgate, but adapts his 
Portuguese translations of Scripture from the Spanish Ferrara Bible and Pagnino's Latin 
version. Yet he feigns to believe that da Costa exclusively relies on the Vulgate. To that 
extent, da Silva is prevaricating. Moreover, da Silva's dishonesty is compounded by the 
fact that he only dwells on the Vulgate's use of the first person as opposed to the third, 
but ignores the more substantial doctrinal question of the resurrection which Jerome 
reads into that verb, and da Costa does not. Da Costa, however, not to be outdone, pretends 
that he has never heard of the Vulgate, that da Silva, when referring to "the Latin version” 
(undoubtedly the Vulgate) is thinking of new Renaissance Latin versions and charges 
him with imputing Jerome's error to those modern translators. The reader may well ask 
at this point what lies behind this contest in equivocation. Da Silva's motive is apparently 
to put down his opponent and make him out to be totally ignorant of the Hebrew Bible 
and an unrepentant devotee of the catholic Vulgate. Da Costa, kicking himself for having 
replaced at one point the third person estara by the first person estarei, and thereby having 
invited, as it were, da Silva's gambit, now chooses to parry with more equivocation. 

3 According to da Costa's exegesis expounded in Chapter 2, the subject of the verb 
to stand is my skin (though it only appears in the next verse), which is taken by him to 
mean my body and then — by some sleight-of-hand — is equated with the scriptural my 
flesh. He therefore considers himself justified in saying that I shall stand and my body 
shall stand is all much of a muchness. Cf. our Introduction, 4. 



400 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


that can only be said by an impious man such as he, an enemy of God. 
Because we fail to keep silent about the true interpretation of the word 
in question, he blames us for not respecting worldly wisdom. The Law 
forbids the favouring of persons in the process of judgement. This 
perverter of justice accuses people who in matters of the Law and divine 
truth straightforwardly state what they think, of not taking into account 
the respect due to certain human authorities. 

Surely one cannot imagine a more immoral accusation than this 
one — an example to put before the eyes of that very same society with 
which he wants to ingratiate himself — one that so vividly sketches and 
paints the blind wickedness of these mischievous minds, these impu¬ 
dent snakes and vipers whom the prophet portrays as rebellious, refrac¬ 
tory, thorny, scorpions [cf. Ezek. 2]. 

O you wicked man! Before whom are you accusing me? Would it 
be, perhaps, before the Christian, and are you accusing me of not submit¬ 
ting to his interpretation? Well, the Christian himself replies to you that 
since I am a jew, he cannot oblige me to submit to his interpretation. 
The most he can do would be to point out, provided he be equipped 
to do so, that my interpretation is erroneous. Are you implying that 
I have no right to diverge from the Christian interpretation, though mine 
be correct (and please note that many Christians understand this verse 
in the manner that I interpret it) and that only you have that privilege, 
though you spout out nonsense? For you claim that the last , of which 
Iyob was speaking, is God, Who is [elsewhere in Scripture] named "The 
Last,” and that it is He who will arise upon the dust, which is humanity. 
This interpretation is outrageous, because it does not fit the context. 
It could not have occurred to Iyob at this point to say that God would 
arise to judge the world, when the verses steadily harp on this one 
thought: that his skin and his crushed and painful body would still be 
upon the earth. There is nothing here about God standing upon 
humanity, which is how this false dreamer understands the verse, taking 
the word dust as a synonym for the human species and the word last 
to designate God! 

Now let us turn our attention to his hallucination about the word 
last. He says that when it is not joined to the pronouns mine, your, his 
(O you dull and incompetent grammarian!), necessarily refers to an 
ultimate event which is not followed by any further one. With this in 
hand he comes to teach us, and claims that we have little knowledge 
of languages and grammar. (O what a wretched knight errant! Really 
he should leave the trade to those more competent than he, for all his 
adventures never result in anything except the stirring up of tumults 
and getting his head bashed.) Why should something which is called 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


401 


last, necessarily be final, after which there is nothing more? Often 
something which follows is called last, relative to what preceded it. For 
instance, tomorrow may be the last day of something in relation to 
today, if today was the first day. 4 Thus, when Ya c aqob says to his 
sons: 

[...] Gather yourselves together and I shall tell you that which shall befall 
you on the last of days [Gn. 49, 1] 

he does not mean on the very last of all days, after which there will 
never be another day, but rather on the days which lie ahead, that is 
to say, they are the last in relation to those which preceded them. Thus 
we read: 

We will not conceal from their children, to the last generation [...] 
[Ps. 78, 4] 


and: 

[...] in order that the last generation, even the children that are to be 
born, may know them; they will arise and tell their children [Ps. 78, 6] 

further examples of last as a relative rather than a superlative. The 
generation which follows ours is last with respect to ours which pre¬ 
cedes it, albeit another generation will follow that next one, and so on. 
Our knight errant has once again distinguished himself in battle! 


Chapter 17 

On the Book of Daniyel and Other Related Matters 


In his Chapter 23, our adversary sets out to counter our challenge 
of the authenticity of the book called Daniyel. But he attaches no impor¬ 
tance to its canonicity being rejected by the Sadducees. The latter he 


4 The medieval jewish commentators discuss whether the word ’aharon in Scrip¬ 
ture is relative or superlative, esp. in relation to Ex. 4, 8; Dt. 29, 21; Haggai 2, 9. 



402 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


calls renegades and heretics who are cursed daily in their liturgy. 1 It 
seems to us to be almost a law of nature that the many who err accuse 
the few who are most correct of holding the wrong opinion. Nor is this 
Pharisaic faction, full of pretence and falsehood, an exception when it 
calls those who come closest to the truth "renegades” and "heretics”. 
If the Sadducees earned these names by forswearing the false tradi¬ 
tions contained in the Talmud, then many of us are indeed renegades. 
But if the epithets "renegades” and "heretics” are more appropriately 
applied to those who reject the teaching and truth of the Law, inven¬ 
ting new legislation, then surely those saintly Pharisees, reputedly 
separated from the common people, answer the definition and are the 
real renegades and heretics who deserve to be cursed. And that this 
is in fact the case and that the exile and other evils that befell the people 
are due to them, may be readily surmised, seeing it was they who were 
in charge during the period of the Second Temple and the nation was 
judged and governed by them. So the curse written in the Law was 
fulfilled in them and because of them. And today it is not only they who 
suffer under this curse, but because of them, also, that minority of 
dissenters. Let us renounce, therefore, such abhorrent heretics who, 
having brought down the curse upon themselves in the first place, dare 
to pronounce anathema against people who adhere most faithfully to 
the Law. Let it not be said, however, that we defend Sadduceism uncon¬ 
ditionally, because before obtaining a thorough knowledge of all its 
principles and doctrines, one cannot judge it. However, the informa¬ 
tion at our disposal suggests that the Sadducees did well to reject 
those vain Pharisaic glosses which undermine the Law and to condemn 
those false scriptures invented to provide confirmation. The Sadducees 
knew precisely how to tell true from false scriptures and they were 
sufficiently acquainted with the Pharisees to see through their wiles. 

Still on the subject of the malevolence of these accursed cursers, 
I would never have believed how rabid and long-lasting it was had I 
not experienced it first-hand. When in years gone by I used to read 
Josephus' histories, I could never contain my amazement at the descrip¬ 
tions of those endless massacres, carnages, internecine strifes and 
hatreds which ravaged the political life of that miserable Republic. It 


l The words na sua oragao can be translated either by "in their liturgy” or "in 
his liturgy.” We have opted for the former because da Silva described this formula (cf. 
our note 4 to da Silva's chapter 23) as one that is generally recited. By using "their” rather 
than "our,” da Costa may be distancing himself from it, implying that his own c amida 
omitted this interpolation. On the other hand, the use of "their” rather than "our” may 
be simply a rhetorical device. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


403 


was Pharisaism that had sown the seeds of all that hatred; who could 
have failed to be provoked by the insolent, shameless and malevolent 
tongues of such impudent men? Could anyone have failed to be alarmed 
by their doings, however patient and long-suffering he might be? It had 
to end in rivers of blood. These people are so hard-hearted, that not 
even the long exile, wandering through foreign lands, unending hard¬ 
ships which befell them there, ever sufficed or could suffice to produce 
unity and agreement among them and to stop them from harming one 
another. It would appear to me that their malice goes all the way back 
to those brothers of old, that pack of wolves who, oblivious to all human 
feelings, conspired to contaminate and stain themselves with the blood 
of the pious, innocent and gentle lamb who had come wandering 
through the fields to see how they were faring [cf. Gn. 37]. 

O false Pharisee, false accuser, false traducer, the blood spilt until 
now is little in your eyes; you wish to spill more and you are thirsting 
for mine! I dare you to fix a date to meet me on the field! There let 
us kill each other, after signing acquittances stating that no one is to 
avenge our death! But do not go around like a cowardly little dog, 
barking at people on the streets! On the field you shall find me more 
courageous with my hands than I find you with your mouth! 

Let us return to the lucubrations of our knight-errant. He claims 
that the seventy scholars who translated the Bible into Greek, 
illuminated by the divine spirit (you are a liar! for by that time prophetic 
inspiration had ceased: they were plain Pharisees like the others), 
introduced in the 24 books which now make up the canon certain correc¬ 
tions and scholia they believed to be necessary. Well, if that is true, 
no further proof is needed to show them up. For you cannot have it 
both ways. Either the 24 books which you claim to believe in, are 
genuine and well written, or they are not. If they are, then the seventy 
scholars who modified the genuine well-written scripture were 
perfidious counterfeiters. 2 If, on the other hand, the books were not 
genuine and well-written in the first place, then you are admitting that 
at one time books were declared canonical which were not genuine but 
stood in need of emendation and improvement. So much for those books 


2 The seventy (or seventy-two) scholars never tampered with the biblical text, 
nor could da Silva have made such a claim. What da Silva meant (albeit he expressed 
himself quite clumsily) was that their emendations were introduced in their translation. 
("[...] when the 70 scholars translated these books [...] they introduced certain changes 
and glosses they believed necessary [...]”). In view of this fact da Costa's argument loses 
its force. 



404 


’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


of which only you recognize the canonicity. From the foregoing 
demonstration it ensues that those books — or those parts of them — 
whose canonicity were never recognized by the Sadducees, simply fall 
into the category of Pharisaic books, deserving neither of credence nor 
of recognition. 

Next he asks why should the resurrection not be limited to a certain 
group of people, as we find in the Book of Daniyel, and why should those 
masses of humanity who neither favoured nor illtreated Yisra'el or were 
perhaps even unaware of Yisra'el's very existence, be raised from the 
grave? Would it not be sufficient, he goes on to ask, if those tyrants, 
persecutors and Inquisitors who devastated, persecuted and murdered 
Yisra'el came back to earth and re-entered their bodies for a spell, to 
undergo infamy, insult and opprobrium? 

Forsooth all the fantasies dreamt up by our adversary and his band 
are like bad jokes which people tell each other to while away the time. 
Were he consistent, he should have said that anyone can proclaim 
himself a prophet and declare that all those who harmed members of 
his own nation must be thrown into a cauldron and simmered on a low 
flame! Were we to believe our adversary there are no sins in the world 
that count, save those committed against Yisra'el! Ones committed 
against other people — even cannibalism — so long as they were not 
injurious to Yisra'el, do not justify the return of their perpetrators to 
earth to receive their due. 3 

O you monstrous, blind and miserable sect, do not complain about 
the tyrants of this world, do not complain of the Inquisitors! Complain 
about yourself, who wish to transgress and break the covenant which 
you made with God and then wonder why He sends tyrants and 
Inquisitors against you! And be sure that if there were a lack of these, 
there would still be enough snakes around to bite you, as they bit your 
ancestors in the desert. Rest assured that the tyrants of this world and 
the Inquisitors will be given their just deserts. God knows how to judge 
them, whereas you know nothing. These oppressors about whom you 
complain learned from you and with them God is paying your teaching. 
The rest of what you say concerning people resuscitated and embodied 
for a while because of the demands of reason, simply exposes your 


3 Da Costa misrepresents his opponent when he implies that according to him only 
sins committed against Israel count. What da Silva actually said was that reason and 
justice demand that the soul of those who harmed Israel must receive — in addition to 
the posthumous punishment in the hereafter undergone by all wrong-doers — a well- 
publicized punishment here on earth in full view of that (resurrected) people. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


405 


unreason and your foolishness. Return to God as you are obliged to 
and He will remove from you the snakes which bite you, the tyrants 
and the Inquisitors! 

What you read in my quires about this book which you call Daniyel 
seems not to have hit home. Far from it. (Not only does your churning 
out apocryphal books continue unabated, you have, in addition, 
embarked on a new business of miracle production — proclaiming child 
prodigies as prophets.) Therefore, since my earlier attempt failed, I must 
discharge my critical volleys full blast and do not say you did not ask 
for it. Are you not ashamed of those ignoble myths contained in that 
book of yours, such as the one about Nebukadnezar spending seven 
years among beasts, eating grass, bereft of human reason (his nesama 
must have taken a walk for a spell), after which he was restored to his 
former state and power? Now since this benighted wretch did not lose 
his human semblance while he dwelt among the beasts, you could at 
least have assigned him a place in his own stables, among his horses, 
rather than making him graze in the open air day and night. This and 
similar idiotic stories are to be found in that book filled with your 
spurious additions. Never do you miss a chance to spin some fabulous 
yarn, if only for the purpose of securing and reinforcing one of your 
irrelevant remarks or thoughts. 

No less fictional is what you write in the book which you call 
Esther, that the king gave permission to the jews to go out and massacre 
people in the streets of various cities, and those other stories of a similar 
nature. Abandon your fancies, you impious fabricator of lies! Let those 
who would quench their thirst for truth not seek it with you, but rather 
search for another, cleaner, source, where they will drink better waters. 

While on the subject, we should like to point out that the Sadducees 
— to give them their name 4 — nowadays spread out through many 
parts of the world, never experienced in the lands of their dispersion 
an Inquisition or its tyrannies; a sure sign that they were and are not 
implicated in the crimes of the Pharisees, for which the corresponding 
retribution — measure for measure — is that they are punished by men 
who, like themselves, twist, distort and falsify Scripture. 5 

We almost forgot to reply to a terrible accusation made by our 
adversary, to the effect that our claim concerning his theory of resur¬ 
rection in messianic times is false, since Pharisees do not connect the 


4 Da Costa must mean the Karaites, of whose existence he is apparently aware, 
but whose name he does not care to mention. 

5 Cf. this "Providential” explanation of the Inquisition with the quite different one 
da Costa gave supra, chapter 14! 



406 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


resurrection with the advent of the masiah, but rather distinguish 
between the two events. He concludes by saying that the resurrection 
will occur at the end of the days of the world, which is tantamount 
to saying that it will never happen, for the world will never come 
to an end. Our deceptive adversary believes his Pharisaic ideas to be 
arcane and esoteric. He does not seem to realize that they circulate 
in writing and are readily accessible to anyone who cares to acquaint 
himself with them. 

To really show him up we need only note that he himself, in his 
Chapter 22, applies Yesa c yahu's verse "Thy dead shall live” [26, 19] to 
the resurrection which will take place after the people of Yisra'el is 
redeemed from its captivities. Thus, in Chapter 22, the resurrection is 
consequential to the coming of the masiah and unrelated to "the end 
of the days of the world,” unless he means that the world will end when 
the masiah comes. The man continually contradicts himself; there is 
no solidity to anything he says. As to the length of life that accrues to 
the revived corpses, the kind of death they will again undergo, the state 
of the world after the coming of the masiah, all these are bedtime stories 
we do not care to repeat. There is nothing noteworthy about them except 
their prodigious volume. When he asserts that the sages did not 
discourse upon matters so esoteric, he gravely slanders those saintly 
sages who by dint of their speculative talent did penetrate the occult. 
That constituted their glory, which he, just this once, deprives them 
of and denies them. 


Chapter 18 

Concerning what our Adversary Says about Metempsychosis, 
and Whether there is an Obligation to Undergo Martyrdom 
Rather than Commit Idolatry 


In his chapter 24 the scoundrel treats of his faction's doctrine regar¬ 
ding the transmigration of souls. He says that this was one of those 
lofty and esoteric matters which the saintly sages concealed (here at 
least he grants that they enquire into secret and occult matters l ) and 


i Obviously da Costa is here reminding da Silva of his inconsistency, for in the 
last paragraph of his chapter 24 the latter wrote "the Pharisees do not dabble in secrets 
of metempsychosis.” 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


407 


wished to restrict to an elite able to receive them and plummet their 
depths. Not satisfied with exuding such nonsensical, barbaric and pagan 
ideas, these people's shamelessness extends to dubbing them "lofty and 
esoteric,” whereas in truth no doctrine can be sound if it is ashamed 
to show itself in broad daylight. Nor can there be any soundness in that 
other temerarious system of theirs, which claims to provide ways and 
means of investigating and approaching the divine essence — a realm 
totally removed from human ken and far beyond its grasp. So that is 
why what they call discoursing upon these mysteries turns out to be 
nothing but gibberish, and why — as such — that system dares not 
proclaim itself openly but is transmitted only in whispers. Far better 
for all were it completely inaudible! 

Watch where the discourse of this transmigrated soul of Atlas who 
bears the world on his back leads him! Not content with being the link 
between earth and heaven, which he already carries on his shoulders 2 , 
our adversary now says that he would also like to be the buttress that 
sustains the crumbling wall surrounding the mystery of the souls — 
broken and penetrated by intruders — to prevent its collapse. This is 
because he is so deeply affected at the thought of such esoteric matters 
being bandied about by ignoramuses. I dare say I have never come 
across so thick, so dull, so insipid, so dense a beast as he, and yet he 
sets himself up as a sage and as a sage proffers advice. O transmigrated 
soul — you can keep your bestial transmigrations, but do not pretend 
that I said that it is in order to make amends that your soul will have 
to be introduced into a cow! You do twist everything and understand 
it in your own peculiar way! The soul is placed in a cow to do penance, 
as I comprehend the Pharisaic teaching, but a second chance to make 
amends is given the soul by sending it back into another human body. 
And do not make such a big issue of my quoting your sages to the effect 
that this is why a cow is slaughtered compassionately. The absurdity 
was to put the soul in the cow in the first place! Once it is in there, 
it is right and proper that the sages should order the slaughtering to 
be done with an extremely sharp knife. The other hidden reasons — by 
which you place such great store — for slaughtering animals in a certain 
way (forsooth cutting an ox's throat must indeed contain some great 
mystery!), you can have them and keep them, for they make up just your 
kind of wisdom. As to what you say about souls coming into the world 
with regret, leaving it again with regret and with regret giving an 
accounting of themselves to God (in respect to the in-between regret 


2 Cf. da Silva, chapter 1. 



408 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


is where you come closest to reality), I think you are quite right. That 
is precisely why your whole soul is so regrettable: regrets inside, regrets 
outside: you are altogether one big regret. 

Since you mention a piece of advice you gave me (I do not remember 
your advice, neither did I ever appoint you my mentor, nor did the 
matter on which you claim to have advised me require advice), let me 
tell you now how different was the one I gave the members of your band 
when they wanted to inflict their excommunications, or their mischief, 
upon me. I counselled them to desist because those methods would get 
them nowhere; and that while what I was claiming was no doubt terribly 
distasteful and weighed heavily upon them, nevertheless they should 
ignore it, go their way and let me go mine; and despite their aversion 
to polemicize on these matters, they need not try to squelch general 
free speech. This, between you and me, was a fine piece of advice. 
But your pack of rascals — and most of all your intimate clique which 
was inciting the youth with its cant — carried away by blind hatred, 
rejected all my arguments, thinking that I was not to be taken seriously. 
What your gang did not know is that I am not one to retract truths nor 
was I brought up to lie. I am not two-faced: if I have a Law, I observe 
it; if I have no intention of observing it, I do not go around saying 
I have a Law. 

Our adversary proceeds in his Chapter 25 to say that the Holy Land 
pardons the sins of the people and for that reason the righteous 
laboured to secure their burial there. (One of these days he will make 
relics of Holy Land soil and order people to kiss it and carry it round 
their necks!) The text he adduces to prove his assertion reads: 

[...] and shall forgive His land, His people [Dt. 32, 43]. 

He claims that this verse settles the matter. Indeed this verse is 
decisive, but it does not and could not be saying what he is making it 
say. 3 What it does say is that God will ultimately take pity on the 
desolation of the land and on the people. How can one put up with 
rogues who blatantly distort Scripture in this way? Anyone else would 
give up at this juncture. 


3 It will be recalled that according to da Silva (cf. his chapter 25 and our note 3) 
and its soil will forgive its people’ (Dt. 32, 43?) "asserts the great advantage and superiority 
of the Holy Land.” 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


409 


In the same chapter he maintains that the services and memorial 
prayers held for the dead are a pious and excellent exercise, and in 
support of this he adduces a legion of absurdities and puerilities on 
which it would be useless to waste time. The dead are impure before 
the deity and sacrifices or offerings made on their behalf, abominable. 
This manifest truth could be backed up by many places in the Law and 
the rest of Scripture but, as I have said, I prefer to conserve my energy 
for a better cause. We do not find that 'Abraham, Yishaq, Ya c aqob or 
any worthy ordered a lamb to be sacrificed to God after his death or 
that some orison be recited for the repose of his soul. The first we read 
of this invention is in the Book of Maccabees, written at a time when 
the Pharisaic sect — the source of this superstition — was in command. 
Quite rightly many nations of Christendom have now rejected and 
condemned it and by doing so they distance themselves from humanly 
devised rituals and come closer to the truth of Scripture, which is 
unaware of such fables and, in fact, impugned those who ate of 
sacrifices for the dead [cf. e.g., Dt. 26, 14; Ps. 106, 28] and slept in the 
vicinity of graves [cf. Is. 65, 4], all barbaric and pagan customs. The 
Law forbids giving of the tithe or anything consecrated to God to 
someone who touched a corpse; how much more would the Law oppose 
newly consecrating to the very deity anything on behalf of the corpse 
itself. 

In his chapter 26 he goes to great lengths to persuade us — quite 
superfluously — that it is meet and proper to abase oneself before God 
for one's sins. Surely even children — novices to the study of the Law — 
know this. Besides, it has no real bearing on what we were saying. More 
to the point is his next assertion, that one is duty-bound to undergo 
torture and death rather than commit idolatry. This assertion, however, 
cannot rest on the Law, which contains no such precept. He cites the 
command to love God with all our heart and soul, but this does not 
support his case. Rather could one derive thence the opposite argument, 
because to love is an action of a living person; the dead cannot love. 
It follows that if human beings are commanded by the Law to love God, 
they must live. And while it is true that committing idolatry is an act 
contrary to the love of God, one must consider the difference which 
exists between a free act of the will and an act done under duress. For 
if I commit idolatry of my own free will, I show thereby that I have 
given up that love, but if I am being forced to commit idolatry on pain 
of torture and death, it cannot be claimed that I have renounced a love 
rooted in my heart, even though in the face of evil the root remained 
invisible. Consider the case of a wife captured by the enemy and 
threatened by death. Whatever happens under such circumstances, she 



410 


’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


is not guilty of adultery, whereas being free, an act of unfaithfulness 
to her husband certainly would constitute adultery. 4 

That God does not require human beings to give up their lives is 
confirmed by the Law: 

And now, Yisra'el, what doth the Lord thy God ask of thee? [...] 
[Dt. 10, 12]. 

Little does the Lord your God require of you. He does not ask for 
your life, that you deliver yourself up to the pyre and to torture. 
To walk in His ways is what he asks you. The Law was given for human 
beings to live by, not to die for: 

[...] in order that thou mayest live [...] and thy children after thee [...] 
[cf. Dt. 4, 40]. 

The tribulations described in Psalm 44, 23, which he cites, do not 
contradict this principle. Far from having been undergone voluntarily, 
their suffering was brought on by sins; suffering being the inevitable 
consequence of sins, as is foretold by the Law. 5 The martyrs of our 
own times do not die affirming their faith in God, but denying Him. 6 
Nor is it in their power to deliver themselves from death, whereby is 
demonstrated God's judgement, as we said. 7 And if — as the adversary 
would have it —, those executed persons were under obligation to 
affirm their faith in God at the supreme moment, and through failure 
to do so supposedly incur a greater punishment hereafter, then all I 
can say is woe to the souls that expired there, which could not be 


4 Cf. the Talmudic discussion on this question (B.T. Sanhedrin 74b). 

5 Just how da Costa extracts this forced interpretation from Psalm 44, 23 ("for 
Thy sake we are done to death all day") he leaves the reader to work out. Could it be 
that to explain away the words "for Thy sake” defies his exegetical capacities? 

6 Da Costa has no doubt in mind the well-attested fact that those victims of the 
Portuguese Inquisition who confessed to having at one time professed belief in the Law 
of Moses were not executed. The great majority of those who were executed, died affir¬ 
ming their uninterrupted faith in Christianity. Da Costa, however, here ignores those 
martyrs who were burned alive as "confessed adherents of the Law of Moses in which 
they wished to die and to which they looked for salvation." Cf. H.P. Salomon, Portrait 
of a New Christian, Paris, 1982, 22-32, 199. 

7 Of course, another inaccuracy. Cases — albeit few — are known of victims about 
to be executed for persistently denying the Inquisitorial charges of judaizing, who by 
an eleventh-hour confession of past "lapses" into judaism, escaped execution. 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


411 


induced either by the hope of future weal or the fear of posthumous 
punishment to undergo that additional bit of suffering. 8 

If one were to ask whether he does well who, rather than commit 
idolatry, delivers himself up to torture, we reply that he will have 
performed a great feat of courage. But seeing that God did not require 
this of him, nor obligated him in those terms, his recompense will be 
the memory of his feat among mankind, for God was under no obliga¬ 
tion to pay him for it. Like a wife who would choose death rather than 
submit to vile and alien possession. Yet we see that 'Abraham and 
Yishaq valued their life more than their honour 9 and this is the 
teaching of the Law, which first forbids killing, then adultery. To be 
sure, outside of the danger zone, all are valiant and resolute but, when 
the chips are down, the most dauntless cringe. Taking the sword in hand 
and engaging in battle with the enemy is quite unlike submitting one's 
neck and one's body miserably to the cruel and bloody executioner: 
a punishment visited upon one by God for sins one has committed. 

Thus we are attempting to answer a well formulated question put 
to us by this fellow: what is the use of being jews if, when threatened 
by death, we yield to idolatry ? We reply that there is no sin in not giving 
unto God that which He did not require of us. And for all that I am 
quite convinced that the author of the question — I am not saying at 
the prospect of death, but at the slightest intimation of a flogging — 
would unhesitatingly recite the whole litany imposed upon him. Were 
I to find myself in such a situation, I do not know how I would react, 
for in this respect even I do not know myself sufficiently. 

So now that we have answered his question, we should like to ask 
him one in turn. We should like to know why he does not observe the 
Divine Law to which God obliges him and forsake the false doctrine 
of monstrous human beings who no longer have canes with which to 
beat him nor rocks with which to stone him even if his adherence to 
God's Law would provoke them into wanting to do so? Why is he so 


8 The "additional bit of suffering” is no doubt an allusion to the Inquisitorial prac¬ 
tice of burning alive steadfast adherents to the Law of Moses, whereas those who were 
executed for not admitting past "lapses” into judaism were killed by garrotting and only 
their corpses were consigned to the flames. This allusion shows that da Costa was well 
aware of the option to be a martyr to judaism, which makes it all the more astounding 
that he ignores those who chose that option. 

9 Cf. Gn. 12, 11-16; 20, 2-13; 26, 7-10. 



412 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


much keener on dissembling in their company and toadying to them, 
expecting his recompense from them, than on following the path which 
God wants him to follow? And why, professing the observance of the 
Law, does he swindle and deprive himself of its divinely promised 
reward, by withdrawing from it and wandering elsewhere? 

Finally, we ask of his whole fraternity: Why do they not return to 
God and why do they allow themselves to perish in foreign lands? And, 
since they were given a Law, why do they not know how to hold it fast 
and reap its fruits? There are no canes, there are no rocks, there is no 
death penalty; yet other false considerations by which they allow 
themselves to be swayed and overcome are of greater weight with him 
and with all of them than the words and exhortations of God. And 
because God's words count for so little with these people, these people 
have so little weight with God. 


Chapter 19 

In Reply to the Adversary's 28th 


This blind man, so deceitful and wicked, repository of malice and 
all abominations, duper of dullards and ignoramuses, who thinks he 
can acquire fame and earn his bread through trickery — fame among 
fools and bread from the same — says that he who habituates himself 
to lies and false opinions, will gradually come to adopt them as truth, 
without repugnance or perturbation. Yet he fails to see his own 
unhappy, yea miserable state! He is that very vessel which has collected 
all the poison, lies and falsehoods of centuries. And since he is so 
accustomed and inured to them, his stomach is averse to everything 
else and any digestive activity which is not eating poison and gobbling 
up lies will cause him to vomit. 

O deceitful, wicked man! I do not justify myself before God, as you 
claim, nor do my words — which are only intended to demonstrate that 
God does not forsake any person who has recourse to and turns to 
Him in trust — signify any such thing. But who can prevent your 
crooked tongue, which is totally unacquainted with the straight path 
of truth, from twisting and falsifying, for that is its refuge and fortress! 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


413 


You say that I am hated and abhorred even by my own brothers. 
Let it be as you say and worse, and let us suppose they sell me into 
Egypt: who do you think was better, Yosef sold, or the sellers, his 
treacherous brothers? You are so ignoble, base and vile that you condes¬ 
cend to comment on attire! God knows that in deference to your and 
your henchmen's malice I adopted a wardrobe out of keeping with my 
own preferences (for I know what suits me best), but this in no way 
spared me your evil tongue. 1 Were I now to dress modestly, you 
would go even further with your falsehoods, pointing to my humble 
appearance as a sign of divine disfavour. If I dress decently, you say 
that I am showing off my prosperity. 2 

O viper! may God cause the itch which afflicts your body, to spread 
to your tongue! You say that the elephant, the lion and many other wild 
beasts are much better off than humans. Since that is how you show 
your gratitude to God, may wild beasts devour you! Surely a malicious, 
kicking mule such as you is not entitled to a good life and an easy death. 
Who ever heard of anyone so churlish and impudent as to claim that 
a horse, because he eats his fill of grain and straw in his owner's stable, 
is better off than his owner, who feeds, bridles and rides him? In short, 
you were unworthy of your human condition. And, since your existence 
is such that the endless evils you suffer in this world are, as you say, 
incapable of mitigation except with the hope of future weal (and, conse¬ 
quently, were he to have his fill of weal here below he would be satisfied 
with immortality in this vale of tears!), do petition God to change your 
condition and to relegate you to the status of brutes. You will lap up 
blood to your heart's content! And if your petition is not accepted, go 
and hang yourself; you will relieve your suffering soul. I say that you 
will lap up blood because that is the food of wild beasts, whose condi¬ 
tion and state you envy: honey and butter you will not eat, because they 
would be tasteless to your palate. Not for the likes of you all the 
goodness which God created only for humans and did not allow other 
animals to enjoy. Not for your eyes to gain satisfaction from the 
contemplation of creation: heavens, sun, moon and stars, earth and all 
its splendour. Your ears will not be delighted with the natural music 


1 The allusion is probably to sumptuary laws adopted by the Hamburg Sephardic 
communities, of the type known to us from Amsterdam, e.g., the "Termos e Asento que 
se fez sobre a Reformasao dos Trajes” of 2 Tebet 5407 (December 10 1646) (Amsterdam 
Municipal Archives, Portuguese Archive 19), published by M. Cadafaz de Matos and 
H. P. Salomon in their introduction to David Franco Mendes and J. Mendes dos Remedios, 
Os judeus portugueses em Amesterdao, Lisbon, 1990, 27-29. 

2 Uriel seems to be telling us that at one time he conformed to the sumptuary 
laws, but after his separation from the community he reverted to gaudy attire. 



414 


’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


of little birds and the artificial music of human composition. The sweet 
scent of perfumes will not penetrate to you. You will say goodbye to 
soft, dainty and freshly washed bedclothes and wallow in manure or 
among thorns of brushwood. You will lose dominion over other 
creatures — a supremacy you scorn and do not deserve — and become 
their servant and slave. In a word, God will strip you of that light of 
reason which you were given to enable you to know Him and praise 
Him for His gracious bestowal of unearned favours. You will be 
reckoned among the toads, exempt and free from sorrows — that is, 
until someone treads on you, squeezing out your venom onto the ground. 

Go ahead, o enemy, oppose God! Join the council of the wicked in 
their endeavour to undermine and vitiate the force of His Law! Rub 
sand into the eyes of the ignorant people, blind them with your confused 
cant and quackery! What you are really doing is to betray them, aye 
and yourself too. But the harvest of your treason you will be sure to 
reap, as indeed you are even now reaping it. As for my own life, by spen¬ 
ding it out of reach and out of sight of you, it will be agreeable, which 
it could not be while I was in your company. With this I am done respon¬ 
ding to you. 

We are not going to deal with that counter-faith, which our adver¬ 
sary claims to be derived from Tradition — and which stands in opposi¬ 
tion to the written Law — nor with the proofs which he adduces to 
back up his delusions and falsehoods. As already stated, we do not 
wish to waste time on recalcitrants who stop their ears, defiantly 
pursuing their prejudice. Truth they trample underfoot, falsehood they 
receive and love. 

Neither do we wish to deal with their method of calculating the 
months — all fictions, distortions and false assertions. We wish merely 
to put forward one example, easy to understand and which will be clear 
to any person of limited intelligence. This done, we shall leave them 
to spin yarns or to please themselves in any other way. 

In the year 5382 [1622] the new moon appeared on March 12 at 
5 o'clock in the morning. The same day the New Moon was celebrated 
and numbering of the days of the month began accordingly, leading up 
to the Feast of Unleavened Bread and other feasts which depend on that 
reckoning. The next year 5383 [1623] the new moon appeared on March 
30 at eleven o'clock at night and the numbering of the days began on 
the first of April. This year 5384 [1624] the new moon appeared on March 
19 at 4 o'clock in the morning and the month began to be counted on 
the 21st. Thus we see that in these three consecutive years three different 
systems were observed: once the month began to be counted from the 
first day of the new moon's appearance, once from the second, once 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


415 


from the third. Let these people now call in a prestidigitator who with 
the refinement of his art will make us believe that these three systems 
are one and the same and that there is no variation or alteration from 
one to the other. Or let them have the shamelessness to assert — as they 
do — that they had authorization for everything and that the Law left 
it to their discretion to designate the months and the days any way they 
see fit. 


Chapter 20 

Wherein is Shown that the Doctrine of Immortality, 
which Posits Eternal Weal and Suffering, is not Pious, 
but the very Opposite 


Having carried our refutation to the extent necessary to confound 
that enemy of the truth, we shall use this last chapter to survey some 
of the great improprieties and abuses which attend the doctrine of 
immortality. Some say it is pious to believe that souls are immortal 
and that human beings can look forward to another life, good or bad, 
according to the merits or demerits earned in this one. We, on the other 
hand, contend that it is sacrilegious to hold such a belief. We shall now 
proceed to explain why. 

Consider the following account and ask yourselves whether it is 
an example of pious thinking or whether it contains elements contrary 
to piety: 'Having been raised in the belief of eternal retribution in the 
hereafter, some human beings found themselves in a state of anguish 
and despair. Seeking a means of escape from that overwhelming 
prospect, they approached God and pleaded with Him to be the satisfac¬ 
tion of their sins. They said to Him that it was beyond their capability 
either to pay the price of sin or to cease from sinning and so it was 
impossible for them to observe the Law.’ 1 Surely this account speaks 
for itself. 


l The missing link between incapacity to eschew sin and incapacity to observe the 
Law, may be found in Pauline theology. (''Some human beings” is, very likely, a designa¬ 
tion for Paul.) 



416 


’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


The Pharisees, as already indicated, had recourse to metemp¬ 
sychosis, invented various kinds of purgatories, all of which foolishness 
proceeded from that very same motive, that is to say, the need to 
alleviate the anguish and pain caused to human conscience by the image 
of eternal punishments. It was because of the place this image occupied 
in the popish religion that Luther was prompted to call that religion 
sanguinary and a torturer of consciences. Yet he left humankind 
without a remedy, because he did not accept the validity of a salvation 
obtained through the free will of each individual. Nor is there any piety 
in the thinking of the Pharisees. How are hallucinations and delirium 
to pass for piety or how is the mixing of frivolity and childish fables 
with God's clear doctrine to be called anything but impious? 

What makes the impiety of this doctrine even more egregious is 
that it attributes to God a cruelty it would not impute to human beings. 
For it proposes that God chastises with eternal suffering the kind of 
misdeed for which kings or earthly judges would consider a punish¬ 
ment lasting even a day to be one of great severity. Imagine a killer 
who was also a highwayman, adulterer and perpetrator of every 
conceivable crime. An earthly judge considers a death sentence 
involving long drawn out torture too severe and is satisfied with having 
him executed in some way proportional to the acts he perpetrated, but 
which will not seem cruel and unnatural, considering that just as nature 
abhors a crime, it abhors cruel punishment. 2 So how dare human 
temerity attribute cruelty to that God Whose title is "long-suffering and 
abundant in mercy,” Who declared that it grieved Him to punish 
perverse and evil humanity as in the days of Noah by a temporal 


2 Da Costa fails to inform us how such proportionality is to be measured and just 
what kind of death sentence he considers to be "natural” rather than "cruel.” It will 
be remembered that in (1624).1.5.2-3 he classifies burning alive at the stake a "common 
and ordinary” method of execution. On the other hand, when one recalls the cruel death 
sentences involving protracted torture and atrocious mutilations inflicted by Western 
European tribunals notably on regicides and parricides, da Costa's unqualified generaliza¬ 
tion concerning the benignity of earthly judges is inexplicable. The question, of course, 
is not really one of "benignity” versus "cruelty.” In the course of time European tribunals 
came to the conclusion that it is impossible for any punishment devised by them to satisfy 
human standards of justice. For instance, however protracted and painful may be imagined 
the execution of the murderer of even one human being, it does not remedy the victim's 
death. A fortiori, human justice cannot cope with crimes against humanity on an extraor¬ 
dinary scale, because the perpetrators' lives are not long enough nor resistant enough, 
to undergo the punishment they truly deserve. That is why — and not because of any 
supposed humaneness or benignity — in the 20th century identical punishment is meted 
out to the murderer of one as to the mass murderer. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


417 


chastisement and promised never to treat mankind this way again? How 
is it possible — without grievously offending His infinite goodness and 
mercy — to entertain the thought that God would have created 
humankind and then predestined to salvation just a small minority and 
to damnation the immense majority and, what is more, relegated all 
these lost and damned people to hell, traditionally depicted as a place 
where miserable souls suffering unbearable tortures unleash their 
tongues against their Creator, uttering ceaseless blasphemy instead of 
praise? I leave aside the great error which consists in imagining or 
conceiving humans — finite creatures, whose creative and destructive 
powers are very limited — to be capable of performing any work 
excellent or diabolical enough to merit infinite recompense. 3 Justice 
does not compensate beyond the merits or demerits of an act. Thus, 
by the criteria of justice, no human being can lay claim to never-ending 
reward for his works, just as there is no human being to whom eternal 
chastisement or penalty could ever be owing. Of course, what has been 
said so far appertains only to earned remuneration, not to an act of 
grace whereby God may elect to grant eternal bliss to human beings. 
For grace is free of that necessary correlation between human effort 
and its rewards inherent in justice. But where is the evidence that God 
did indeed undertake to bestow such an act of grace? Since reason does 
not attest to it, the only source of evidence would have to be God's 
revealed word. But lo and behold, we can find no such word in the Law 
among the many promises which it does proclaim and contain! So much 
for bliss which God gives or might give through an act of grace. As to 
sufferings — if we accept that human beings are not capable of commit¬ 
ting an act which deserves eternal retribution and therefore cannot, 
by the rules of justice, be subjected to infinite punishment — we 
must reject out of hand any idea of undeserved sufferings being 
arbitrarily inflicted by the Deity, because that would be the very 
contradiction of justice. 

The doctrine of immortality has yet another impious consequence. 
It fosters contempt for both earthly weal and earthly woe, by means 
of which God desires to inculcate either love and admiration or awe 
in His creatures. For when the human being contemplates infinity, 
anything finite — however enormous — he holds in low esteem, yea, 
considers paltry. What importance can be attributed to our present 


3 While one cannot fault da Costa for not foreseeing the scale of unspeakable 
atrocities perpetrated during our century, the excesses of, for instance, the Portuguese 
Inquisition, of which he could hardly have been ignorant, seem here to be minimized. 



418 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


existence by someone who is convinced that he will be vouchsafed 
another and better one? Is it surprising that people may be found 
who, thanks to the false supposition furnished them by their deceitful 
religion, have no scruples about murdering princes and lords of the 
realm, in fact, believe that by doing this they earn salvation and, 
for the small price of a brief spell of suffering, are on their way to 
eternal glory? 

This false doctrine, besides breeding scorn for life and its blessings, 
by the same token teaches its followers to despise present suffering 
through contemplation of future bliss. Instead of putting the world in 
order all it does is bring about endless disorder and confusion. So far 
from inspiring fear of God, this doctrine takes it away because — as 
stated above — the majority of human beings will look for ways and 
means of evading the overwhelming threat of eternal torments. Once 
they rid themselves of the fear of other-worldly suffering, they are no 
longer afraid of present ones, thanks to their expectancy of future weal. 
They say that God gives suffering in this world also to the righteous 
and there is an end of all their fear. If, on the other hand, human beings 
would take stock of their true condition and realize that this life is given 
them by God to live to the hilt and that their bliss consists of making 
good use of it and meeting an easy death; and that both things, i.e., to 
live and to die well depend on their works which God sees and 
recompenses according to their merit — considering how great is 
human self-love and people's natural tendency to seek their own weal —, 
then it would be impossible for them to leave off seeking for Him with 
all their might. They will find rest in conforming to God's will and stand 
in fear of Him. 4 

But we assert that greater prosperity and hardships than are to 
be found in this world are unnecessary for subordinating human beings 
to the fear of God. For even if future weal or hardships were a considera- 


4 The author makes a boundless leap from "looking for ways and means” to the 
assumption that these have been successfully found, in fact so successfully, that they 
cancel out and obliterate all lingering misgivings that human beings might ever have 
entertained concerning torments that awaited them beyond the grave. Since the fear of 
hell has — for all intents and purposes — totally lost its sting, the reader would have 
expected room to be found in people's consciousness for fear of this-worldly retribution 
to assert itself; but now he says that no one who believes in immortality takes hell 
seriously. To confuse us further, he adds that another cause for the depravity of human 
beings is their perception that God gives suffering to the righteous and the wicked alike 
— a perception independent of a belief in immortality. In a way da Costa is undermining 
his own argument. Such tortuousness makes the rest of this paragraph difficult to follow. 



URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


419 


tion, human beings are regularly more influenced by here-and-now ones 
than by far-off ones. The only thing that deceives them is that they do 
not see punishment forthcoming at the precise moment they sin. If they 
saw that, all human beings would appear before God with trembling, 
as one trembles before an earthly king whose castigations follow hard 
on the heels of the crime. 

So let this miserable fellow be disabused; even if he does not hear 
the voice of God sentencing him to hang, in the way that he would hear 
a sentence pronounced by an earthly judge, let him but pay heed and 
he shall know that his sentence as been decided on high and though 
the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small. 

From what we have submitted it transpires that there is no piety 
in positing eternal weal and suffering for mankind but rather impiety, 
contrary to divine goodness and justice. The weal and hardships of this 
world, to which God refers in His promises, are adequate and proper 
for preserving man in the fear of God. May all nations bow down to 
Him and praise His Holy Name for ever and ever. Amen. 


END 


Because in the course of this book we have several times mentioned 
the world's eternity and the permanence of the human species, a brief 
discussion of these matters seemed fitting. 



420 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


Question 


It is Asked whether the Heavens and the Earth will Cease and 
whether God will Make an End of Creatures or whether , on the Contrary, 
Everything will Go On Forever. 

We Reply that Everything will Go On Forever and God will not Put 
an End to His Creation 

[1.] This is proved in the first place by God's covenant made with 
Noah after the Flood whereby God promises humankind and every 
living creature that He will not pronounce another total judgement on 
them, as He had done. His decision is motivated by the consideration 
of the corruption and evil inclination of the human heart: 

[...] because the imagination of the human being's heart is evil from 
youth, and I shall not again kill every living thing, as I have done 
[Gn. 8, 21]. 

This motive functions as a further confirmation of the promise, 
because the very wickedness that could be the cause of a renewed 
provocation of divine displeasure and a reawakening of God's anger 
— possibly leading up to the final destruction of a creature whose heart 
is so evil — is taken by God as a reason for having pity on that creature 
and not destroying all life because of it. The promise is further 
confirmed because, to show its permanence and immutability, God 
adds: 


Henceforth, all the days of the earth as long as the earth lasts: seed¬ 
time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day 
and night shall not cease [Gn. 8, 22]. 

'As long as the earth exists there will be no lack of humans to cultivate 
it and all things will maintain their appointed course previously 
followed.’ The words "all the days of the earth” are rhetorical and not 
meant to suggest that the earth's days are finite and will ultimately 
come to an end, an idea which is entirely foreign to natural reason and 
to Scripture itself, as will be shown further on. Rather does it follow 
from this declaration that God will not hold another universal 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


421 


judgement as He did in the days of Noah. So the thrust of the verse 
is that there will never be another universal judgement involving the 
extinction of all species. 1 

2. It is proved by a verse in the Law which says that God's promise 
to the patriarchs is valid forever: 

In order that your days may be multiplied and days of your children, 
on the land which the Lord swore unto your fathers to give unto them, 
as days of the heavens over the earth [Dt. 11, 21] 2 . 

3. It is proved from Psalms: 

Praise Him ye heavens of heavens the highest heavens and ye waters 
that are above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for 
He commanded and they were created. And He established them for 
ever and aye: He gave a decree and it shall not pass [Ps. 148, 4-6]. 

'God created the heavens to be without end and gave a decree and 
a privilege, an inviolable and immutable decree, a statute without 
limitations’: 

Thus saith the Lord: "If My covenant not (were not; were not to last; 
were not enduring) with the day and with the night, ordinances of the 
heavens and of the earth I had not appointed. Then also the seed of 
Ya c aqob [...]” [Jer. 33, 25-26]. 

Thus 'the day and the night, the heavens and the earth were 
established by God's irrevocable decrees to exist and endure without 
end, without interruption or undergoing the slightest change in their 
appointed order’. 

This can also be shown from many other verses in Scripture: 

He founded the earth upon her bases; it shall not slide to all eternity 
[Ps. 104, 5] [...] also the world shall be firmly established; it shall not 
slide [Ps. 93, 1]. 


1 This last sentence is tautologous, perhaps to compensate for da Costa's failure 
to convince his readers (and himself, no doubt) that the expression "all the days of the 
earth” is really amenable to his theory. 

2 The absence of any commentary by da Costa on this verse is telling. 



422 


'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


From all this it is clear that the heavens, the earth, the world and 
its creatures, all were made to last eternally, as reason also teaches, 
and they will never be destroyed. 

The authorities who are cited by some to prove the contrary do not 
really oppose our thesis, provided they are understood in an adultlike 
rather than in a childlike fashion. Surely it is pure childishness to accept 
texts at face value, and without regard to context. These opponents 
adduce Psalm 102, verses 27-28, which say that the heavens will wear 
out and perish and that God will replace them as one changes a garment. 
Were they to consider the Psalmist's intent it might facilitate their 
comprehension. Instead they indiscreetly fling bare, nude words at each 
other. One should realize, first of all, that this psalm is entitled "prayer 
of the afflicted.” Its author depicts his anguish and miserable state, 
imploring God to pity him. He uses as an argument the vanity of human 
life, contrasted with the eternity of the divine essence. To make his point 
even stronger he declares that even if — against all possibility — the 
heavens were to perish and cease, still the eternal Divinity will always 
remain the same and Its years will never come to an end: 

He hath weakened on the way my stronghold; He hath shortened my 
days. I will say: *'0 my God! make me not go up in the midst of my 
days, throughout all generations are Thy years! In olden times didst 
Thou lay the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of 
Thy hands. These will perish and Thou wilt exist and all of them will 
wear out like a garment; as a vesture wilt Thou change them and they 
shall be changed. And Thou the same and Thy years will not end” 
[Ps. 102, 24-28]. 

'My days, O Lord, are limited; You, on the other hand, are infinite; 
truly infinite and truly eternal, for You are the Creator of a work so 
mighty that its majesty misled many into believing that it never had 
a beginning. And, being its executor, You are capable of changing and 
transforming everything from its present state (of course He will do 
no such thing), yet You are immutable, ever One, without alteration 
or change and Your years cannot end.’ 

Here, then, we have the natural and true meaning of these verses. 
Their style is quite common in Scripture, as for instance: 

The waters shall run off from the sea and the river shall become dry 
and dry up. And man lies down and shall not rise [...] [Job 14, 11-12]. 



’URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


423 


'Water will be lacking in the sea it might come to lack, although 
it is inconceivable that such a thing should happen, yet the man put 
to sleep in the pit will never rise again’: 

Shall a woman forget her suckling child [...]? [...] yet shall I not forget 
Thee [Is. 49, 15]. 

'It is highly improbable that she should forget and completely reject 
it and refuse it her breast, but, far beyond this improbability, it is 
impossible that I should forget you’. 

Those who argue against our thesis adduce: 

For as the new heavens and new earth, which I make stand before Me, 
saith the Lord, so shall stand your seed and your name [Is. 66, 22]. 

From this verse they should like to infer that God will create new 
heavens and a new earth, an understanding similar to the one they 
derive from Psalm 102, 27-28. According to this type of exegesis, when 
the Law says that the heavens would become copper for the people and 
the earth iron (Dt. 28, 23), it is saying that God would change the 
substance of those heavens and of that earth and constitute them anew 
out of other matter! 

The true meaning of the verse in Yesa c yahu is that God will 
change the quality of the skies to make them healthy and sweet to those 
who live under them and He will make the earth fertile and delectable. 
Conversely, as retribution for sins, He would make the sky heavy and 
sultry: sky of bronze; and the earth unproductive, parched, craggy: earth 
of iron. As it is written: 

He changed the rivers into a desert and water-springs into a parched 
ground: A fruitful land into a salty waste, for the wickedness of its 
inhabitants. He changed the desert into a pool of water; droughty land 
into water-springs [Ps. 107, 33-35]. 

It is for purposes best known to Him that God changes the qualities 
of the skies and the earth and this is what is meant by "new heavens” 
and "new earth.”. Nonetheless sky and earth remain in their place, 
immutable. Our proposition — that the universe will subsist for ever 
and aye and God will not pronounce final judgement on His creatures to 
make an end of them by means of water or fire (as they say) because His 
promise is not to destroy them — cannot be challenged by any serious 
objection. Rather is it shown to be well-grounded and fortified by Scrip¬ 
ture’s express authority, which reason willingly accepts and adopts. 



424 


URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


SONNET 

Addressed to the Obstinate Rebels of the People 

Where art thou going, poor blind man? — I know not. 

— Show me who is guiding thee. — I am not being guided, 

But relying on another old blind man I met, 

Who has been on this road a long long time. 

— Unhappy wretch! Dost thou not see that Scripture commands 
To fetch the waters in the clear stream, 

And not to listen to that false one's drivel 
As I have already partly demonstrated to thee? 

— Begone! for thou knowest not the secret 
Taught by this blind man of mine who's taking me, 

For it is hidden in the deepest center. 

— So blind one, who lovest thus thy embroilment, 

And art so enraptured by lies, 

From muddy pit may'st thou never rise! 



'URIEL DA COSTA : EXAMINATION 


425 


SONNET 

in the Name of a Few of the People Almost Repentant 

Tragic hard-heartedness, persistent obstinacy, 

Forever going contrary to God, 

Swerving towards evil, felicity changed, 

Erroneous security so injurious, 

Poisonous tongue of those who guide me, 

Deaf ears, closed heart, 

Have thus wounded my poor body, 

Transformed into a dirge my happy tune. 

Were I to my God perfectly to turn, 

To His doctrine and Law to cleave, 

Rueful at having broken the covenant, 

Then one and all would praise me, 

And He would call me as of yore, 

This people of Mine, beloved son. 3 


Peace to the genuine. 


3 The conception of rabbinic judaism as a barrier impeding the redemption of 
Israel was expressed by 10th century Karaite polemicists, e.g., Jefet ben Ali Halevi: "God 
promised the scattered members of His people He would turn to them again when they 
would abandon the work of man (cf. Is. 29,13), among which are to be understood Mishnah, 
Talmud and Aggadah, invented by man.” Cf. S. Posnanski, "The Karaite Literary 
Opponents of Saadiah Gaon in the 10th century,” in Karaite Studies (Philip Bimbaum, 
ed.), 131-234: 158. 




TREATISE 

ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL 


Composed 

by Doctor Semu’el da Silva, 

Wherein is Also Exposed the Ignorance 
of a Certain Contemporary Disputant, who, Among Many Other Errors, 
Adopted and Proclaimed the Mad Opinion 
that the Human Soul Dies Together With the Body. 


At Amsterdam 

Printed At the Press of Paulo de Ravesteyn 
Year of Creation 5383 






429 


To the Gentle Reader 


In order to protect those who are still sound of body, it is common 
practice in society to banish the plague-stricken (or, at the very least, 
to keep them outside the gates), forbid all contact with them and take 
preventive measures against the spread of the plague. If this is not done, 
the air becomes infected, the disease spreads insidiously and, before 
you know it, entire cities and even provinces have been decimated. 

Now that we have among us someone who is worse than the plague, 
having already taken steps towards his banishment, the time has come 
to protect ourselves by prescribing a theriac against the venom he is 
spewing. We must beware and fear his venom, because by calling 
himself a jew and under the cloak of simulated virtue and modesty, 
he could easily destroy or at least infect some simple and incautious 
souls to whom he desires and tries to transmit his false and reprehen¬ 
sible opinions. It is such souls we wish to warn and alert to the danger, 
lest they put themselves into jeopardy if at any time or place they should 
fall into the company of or have conversation with this hypocrite or 
any others of his type, who, excellent as their stock may be, do in some 
rare instances degenerate into monsters. 

Out of respect for the honourable family to which this man belongs 
I am not revealing his name, although he is not deserving of such 
consideration. I watched and registered the course of his life; his 
insolent and haughty manner of speaking, his hypocrisy and deceit¬ 
fulness during the time he haunted our places of worship — pretending 
to champion their holy rules and regulations — and the subterfuges 
which were the first samples of the poison he was distilling. The final 
proof of his attitude came when he did not hesitate to draw up and 
distribute a declaration in which he denied the Tradition and the Oral 
Law given by God to Mose on Mount Sinai — the true explanations of 
the Written Law — saying that they are deceptions and frauds and that 
the Law has no need of such explanations and that he and others like 
him can give better ones. 1 


1 The reference is to the "Objections against Tradition” which da Costa "drew up 
and distributed” in 1616 . 



430 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


He asserted that the dinim by which Yisra'el was and is governed 
were all invented by ambitious and malicious men. He condemned the 
approved, traditional method of circumcision, disparaged the manner 
of making and using tefillin and mezuzah. He proclaimed it a great 
iniquity to celebrate a festival for two consecutive days, where the Law 
only commanded one day of celebration. He did not accept the 
legitimate reason given for this by the prophets and holy men who lived 
at the time of the First and Second Temples. It made no impression 
on him to hear that the Law itself makes room for the possibility of 
acting against din when those in authority deem such action expedient, 
as did 'Eliyahu, when he sacrificed on Mount Carmel [lKgs. 18, 31-36] 
in violation of the law which restricts sacrifice to the holy Temple and 
as did Gid c on who had the men of Penu'el killed for refusing his 
soldiers bread [Jdg. 8, 17], in spite of the absence of a law which justifies 
killing people for such a deed. 

He lacked neither friends nor people solicitous for his welfare who 
begged and cautioned him time and again to return to the path from 
which he had strayed; a path that had been charted for him in the 
writings of the Sages. Everything was tried to avoid recourse to 
harshness, but to no avail. Even so, we proceeded with as much 
gentleness as his case allowed and consented that he continue to reside 
in the city, to see whether he would repent and turn from his errors. 
But, instead of that, I and other persons of our persuasion saw writings 
of his 2 so scandalous and insolent that with good reason we could 
have made a tear in our clothing as good jews do and should do when 
they hear the name of the Lord profaned, because — and this is not even 
the worst of his blasphemies — he says that all Yisra'el is practising 
a strange cult and that he wishes to destroy it, just as Gid c on 
destroyed the altar of Ba c al. 

And to this he adds (it comes down to having no fear of God nor 
having a soul — at least he might as well not have one, for all the 
difference it would make to him) that man's soul is mortal and 
perishable and ends together with the body, just like the souls of horses 
and mules in whom there is no understanding. Surely one is compelled 
to react and defend the immortality of the soul when one hears such 
beastly and vile opinions. Incredible as it might seem that such 


2 No doubt a reference to the "Examination of Pharisaic Traditions” of which, 
as da Silva will tell us below in Chapter 8, he obtained three chapters though he also 
had an inkling of what the other chapters had to say, as he will intimate at the end of 
his own chapter 28. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


431 


contagion might infect any good jew, there is no denying that we are 
here confronted with just such an instance. And if it could happen in 
the case of this one, who is to say that others also might not allow 
themselves to be taken in, out of ignorance or arrogance. Therefore we 
must establish in the first place the truth and then refute the specious 
arguments invoked to contradict it. 

As for you, friend and zealous reader, consider all this with sound 
and disinterested judgement, straining to your heart the truth of the 
Holy Law of the Lord. Pray believe me when I now tell you that what 
moved me to undertake this work, was, among other things, the ardent 
desire to bring a misled and lost sheep back to the fold. I beseech you 
to play your part in helping to effect his rehabilitation. May God grant 
you the strength and keep you for many years to use it in His service. 






433 


Chapter 1 

About the Creation of Man and his Perfections 


In the beginning God created the heavens and earth and all that 
is in them. We hold that the creation of the heavens included the crea¬ 
tion of the angels, so that the entire mechanism, both the visible and 
the invisible parts, consists of three worlds: the angelic, the celestial 
and the terrestrial. The Lord, Blessed be He, is called moulder or 
fortress of worlds in Yesha c yahu [Is. 26, 4], and this is what the 
serafim seen by that same prophet [Is. 6, 3] — who continually praised 
their Creator, saying: "Holy, Holy, Holy,” — wanted to express, as if 
to say: "Holy in all three worlds; Praised and Sanctified in all of them”. 

Now when the Lord our God wanted to connect these worlds with 
one another, establishing communication between them without which 
— as the Philosopher says — the terrestrial world could not be main¬ 
tained (and this communication was as difficult to establish as to join 
earth to the heavens), God adopted an excellent method, namely the 
creation of man, endowed with virtues making him as it were the link 
and the bond between earth and the heavens; not corporeally (for it is 
repugnant to reason for a body to be at the same time in different 
places), but by his spirit, which in man is so angelic and elevated that, 
as Pindar says, it contemplates that which is above the heavens and 
that which is hidden under the earth. It is so ethereal, that it passes 
through every part of the terrestrial world at once; it climbs to the 
celestial world by meditating upon all its spheres; rises to the angelic 
world and reaches the highest hierarchy of angels and, what is more, 
does not stop until it attains the First Cause. Since it was meet that 
this excellent creature, while dwelling on earth, should have a relation¬ 
ship with heaven, it needed to consist of two parts, as different from 
each other as earth and heaven. Thus it came about that while his body 
was taken from the earth, his soul was more than heavenly, because 
it proceeded directly from God Himself, as the verse says: 

And the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground, and 

breathed into his nostrils the soul of life [...] [Gn. 2, 7]. 



434 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Precisely because this work was so surpassingly wondrous, above 
all the rest of creation, not only did God keep it for the very last, 
demonstrating thereby that it was the pinnacle and purpose of the whole 
work of creation, but, what is more, when at last God reaches that stage 
of creation, He uses a different style and terminology to describe it. 
While in respect to all the preceding it was a matter of God speaking 
and the command being immediately carried out, here He changes the 
wording and says: "Let us make man” [Gn. 1, 26], words suggesting that 
this work would have been deserving of outside advice and help (were 
it within the purview of God to consult, which of course is not the case, 
for He has use neither for help nor advice; polytheistic interpretations 
of the phrase "Let us make” are in any event immediately dispelled and 
dissolved by the next verse: "And God created man [...]”). 

Indeed the work produced by the very hands, as it were, of such 
a Craftsman bears the stamp of perfection, as can be seen in man's 
features, colours and limbs. As to his soul, it was introduced by the 
mouth of God Himself and with His very breath. As to his excellence, 
it is the concentration and epitome of all perfections found in all worlds. 
In view of this, man well deserves to be called a microcosm, for in him 
are found existence as in the elements; compounds and anneals as in 
alloys; vegetative faculty as in plants; sensation and motive power as 
in animals and, finally, the intellective soul which makes him like the 
angels. It is this which gives man his peculiar nature, setting him off 
from brute animals; this is the part of him which we shall prove to be 
immortal and incorruptible; this, finally, is what makes man ascend 
so high, that the Psalmist says of him: 

Yet Thou hast made him but a little less than angels [...] [Ps. 8, 6] 


Chapter 2 

About the Opinions Entertained by Gentile Philosophers 
Concerning the Soul 


Ignoring the divers opinions of all other philosophers regarding 
the rational soul, I shall confine my attention here to those two who 
occupy, as it where, opposite poles. The first of these belongs to a school 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


435 


whose adherents considered man's soul so noble and independent of 
the body, that they would not even admit to the two being consubstan- 
tial. Instead they claimed that the soul directs the movements of the 
body, not by inspiring it with life, but, rather, in the manner of a pilot 
at the rudder who directs the movements of a ship. If the body were 
for any reason adverse or refractory, the soul would immediately 
withdraw, and the result of this withdrawal is what is called "death 
of the body.” Then the soul would become free and in charge of its own 
fate, not losing any of its essence, and thus attaining immortality. 1 
This was the opinion of Plato and his followers. Diametrically opposite 
stood those who held that soul and body are so interrelated and 
interdependent that in no possible way could they be conceived as 
separate entities. That school of philosophers thought of the soul as 
mortal and corruptible, possessed of no greater durability than the body 
on which its existence depends. In ancient Greece, Epicurus and his 
vile flock subscribed to this wicked opinion; and in Judaea the malicious 
and stubborn Sadoq with that execrable band of followers, known as 
Sadducees. No trace of these is to be found in the world today, at least 
not in those parts where minds are improved and profane and sacred 
literature is studied, except perhaps for some isolated individual whose 
education was neglected and who, carried away by his passionate 
adherence to depraved opinions in general, ended up so miserably as 
to be totally blind to his own soul. Such is the case before us which 
we take up, compelled by our own conscience and our desire to restore 
and rehabilitate this former limb of our body, now, to our deepest 
regret, gangrened and cut off. Yet we do not despair of his ultimate 
cure, for he still has his free will and is at liberty to seek repentance 
and do penance for his errors and to turn toward the Lord Who does 
not refuse His mercy to anyone but rather beckons sinners to take balm 
for their ills: 

Return, contentious children; I shall heal your obstinacy [...] [Jer. 3, 22] 


l According to this view it sounds as if the soul's immortal quality is assumed only 
after its separation from the body and its abandonment of that steering job. 



436 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Chapter 3 

In Which are Refuted the Above Opinions and the True One is Stated 


Between these two fallacious and erroneous extremes, the Platonic 
and the Epicurean, is to be found the certain and infallible truth which 
we follow, namely that the rational soul is substantially united with 
and attached to the body, informing it with life, but, in contradiction 
to the Platonic opinion, not attending upon it. Nevertheless we hold, 
contrary to the Epicurean view, that when death dissolves this union, 
the soul continues to live, free and separate from the body. One of the 
principal objections to the Platonist view, which assigns the soul a func¬ 
tion of mere attendance upon the body, is that from it ensues that the 
soul does not give life to the body. Such a view deprives the soul of 
its principal function, which is to vivify. 1 

What is more, if the soul did not vivify the body, then all seeing, 
hearing and speaking which occur would have to be attributed to 
another force acting inside the body, like the malign spirits in the 
idols. 2 From this it would inevitably follow that man would not be 
man, because man is [by definition] a composite of body and soul, while 
according to this Platonic conception there is no composition, i.e. t union 
of the component parts. 3 

The folly of the Epicureans may be confuted by cogent arguments 
which we shall advance when proving the immortality of the soul. We 
agree with the Epicureans only as to the soul's being truly united to 
the body as long as it lives, but we shall point out to them that it may 
be and indeed is separated from the body when the body dies. This can 
be clearly demonstrated. For since it is true and beyond doubt that any 
created thing has a function, and we can prove that the rational soul 


1 This argument is circular. It is da Silva, not Plato, who postulated that the prin¬ 
cipal function of a soul is to vivify. 

2 By associating man's power of speech with idols, da Silva is reducing this func¬ 
tion to an absurdity, whereas in fact many believe the gift of speech to be the distinguishing 
mark which separates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom. Cf. for instance 
Onkelos to Gn. 2, 7. 

3 Another circular argument. It was da Silva himself who dogmatically laid it 
down above (in Chapter 1) that man by definition is a compound of body and soul. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


437 


can function without a body, it follows of necessity that it can exist 
separately from the body. Granted that the soul, as long as it is united 
to it, makes use of the body in whatever it undertakes as if the body 
were its tool, there are nevertheless certain functions which are entirely 
foreign to the body, namely those of the so-called separate understan¬ 
ding, and those of the will, which are totally spiritual and extremely 
distant from anything corporeal, as will become evident in the following 
chapters. 4 * 6 


Chapter 4 

Wherein is Proved the Immortality of the Soul 
in Respect to the Understanding 


Let us first make clear that the soul is totally spiritual and invisible 
and in no way corporeal or material. For, if it were otherwise, 
considering that the soul is united with and attached to the body, it 
would mean that two bodies would be in one place simultaneously and 
the one absorbed into the other — a totally absurd concept, unaccep¬ 
table to philosophic discourse. Next let us see what knowledge may be 
gained of the soul by examining its own functions, namely those of 
understanding, which have no intercommunion with the body, as is 
exemplified in the case of the angels who, for this reason, are called 
"pure intellects” 1 and in the case of God, called "the purest intellect.” 


4 In this chapter da Silva seems to recognize the existence of no more than one 

soul per person, but da Costa certainly understood da Silva to be a believer in a multiplicity 
of souls: i.e. the animal; the intellective; etc. Now it is true that da Costa in his chapter 

6 refers to this sentence of da Silva's as follows: "you... admit in your third chapter that 
the main function of the soul is to vivify.” But then, where is da Silva's consistency? 
Cf. da Costa's chapter 10. 

1 Da Silva fails to inform us who it is that calls angels "pure intellects,” or how 
it follows that when the same term is applied to the human intellect it needs must be 
one and the same thing. In other words, da Silva's "proof” is based on the unprovable 
nature of angels. 



438 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


So in God and in the angels, where there is no matter, there is understan¬ 
ding. The same must be true of the separated soul, since man does 
apprehend (for, as far as understanding goes, the rational soul knows 
of no limits and is like unto God and is able to apprehend all matters 
pertaining to God and, indeed, the divine essence itself). 

Thus we are forced to recognize that in man there is a spiritual 
constituent whence proceeds the capacity for perception. This consti¬ 
tuent can be none other than the soul, without admixture of body or 
matter. Its capacity for perception enables the soul to sketch and 
portray for itself an object, not tangibly, to be sure, but in the imagina¬ 
tion. For the likeness of an object to be imagined and pictured by the 
soul, it must have come to it from outside itself. This is why the eyes 
absorb and bear the impress of colours and features of objects in order 
to see them; the tongue does likewise with flavours in order to taste 
them; similarly the other senses, each one in relation to the feelings 
or qualities proper to it. From these corporeal experiences acquired 
by means of senses exterior to the soul, that same soul goes on to derive 
spiritual experiences by virtue of internal senses. This can be easily 
demonstrated, because any image of an object, though it be experienced 
by an external sense, is much less corporeal and material than the object 
itself. For instance, to enable me to see an object at some distance, the 
object emits a likeness of itself which reaches me and by means of this 
image received in the eye I see the very object it represents. Who can 
doubt that this replica or image and likeness of the object is spiritual, 
as it were, relative to the object itself? This is why objects the size of 
the heavenly bodies can fit into our small pupils. The enormous 
difference which exists between the physical dimensions of these visible 
bodies and those of the images and likenesses which our soul receives, 
should make us conscious of the degree of spiritualization that takes 
place before any likeness becomes intelligible. The degree of spirituali¬ 
zation is so great that the likeness may be considered purely spiritual, 
stripped of all matter, and in no way can it be reflected in the body 
or in anything corporeal. 2 

This is demonstrated even more clearly in the apprehension of 
separate natures, called Ideas by Plato, e.g., human beings, plants and 
other universal natures, which the understanding perceives and 


2 Is it possible that da Silva means to say that the organ called the eye is not part 
of the body, and hence the term "purely spiritual” (i.e., not at all corporeal)? Optics is 
obviously outside the physical domain for our author. Significantly, though he informs 
us how angels perceive objects, how animals see is ignored. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


439 


considers to be totally separated and distinct from matter. For were 
all plants in the world to die out, this would not stop our intellect from 
perceiving the concept of plant and discoursing upon it, and similarly 
in respect to the nature of other separate and collective objects. 3 
From this it follows that the likenesses of these objects must be purely 
spiritual and thus it is impossible that anything could be stamped and 
impressed from them which is non-spiritual. So, since man apprehends 
the separate natures of particular objects and individuals, and the soul 
appropriates all the images of the said natures — it is impossible for 
the soul to be anything but a spirit independent of the body and, since 
it can function on its own without a body, it need not be subject to the 
body's mortality. That is how it was understood by the philosophers 
who designated this power of the soul "separate understanding’’ 
— and properly so, for it considers and contemplates entirely separate 
natures and, supremely, God Himself. 

This argument is further confirmed by the fact that, in regard to 
perception by means of the imagination, divine, angelic and human 
perception resemble each other and possess a degree of equality propor¬ 
tionate to each one. God perceives through having within Him all the 
spiritual likenesses of objects, as He also possesses all perfections of 
everything, since He is the first principle and source of all of them. 

The angels receive from God, together with their angelic nature, 
certain images which represent objects, in order to perceive and know 
these objects by means of those images. But souls grasp these images 
by means of the bodies which they utilize, gathering through the gates 
of the senses the likenesses of things grosso modo, which the soul then 
filters and refines by means of interior senses, transforming them into 
ever more refined images, until at last they have become intelligible 


.3 This (i.e., that one could discourse about plants, even if all plants had died out) 
is true only if pictures or descriptions were available on paper or stored away in human 
memory. Many words in the ancient writers conjure up no clear image for us, and can 
only be spoken of, as it were, algebraically, because the original referents have got lost. 
If a glossary were to be discovered, then the meaning of those words may be retrieved 
and meaningful discourse about them would again become possible. And even assuming 
that the original meaning of the word "plant” had really been lost from all animate and 
inanimate records, and the discourse would be a fictitious creation which was now being 
read into the shell-word "plant,” it would still need to be proved that imagination or 
the creation of fiction is totally divorced from all physical experiences of the creator 
of that fiction — which of course neither da Silva nor anyone else has proved — before 
such discourse can be classified as "purely spiritual and stripped of all matter.” 



440 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


and stripped of all matter. Although the Creator could have given souls 
images of objects as He gave to the angels, yet He did not do so, because 
in order to honour His creatures and bestow greater favour and mercy 
upon them, He is not accustomed to perform for them anything they 
could equally well do themselves. 4 But whereas human souls could 
acquire and conceive these images by means of their bodies, this is not 
the case with the angels, because the latter are not forms joined to 
bodies, as are human souls. 5 

From this exposition we may learn that the soul, once joined to the 
body, cannot perceive without the body’s help, which help consists of 
images it produces, picked up by its senses. 6 This prompted the 
Philosopher to declare that there is nothing in the understanding which 
has not first passed through one of the senses. But the need which it 
has of these ministrations of the body does not detract from the soul’s 
power to perceive everything created and uncreated, in the same way 
as do the angels and, to the extent that it is possible, as does God 
Himself. In the absence of outside stimulation the soul has the capacity, 
when disembodied, spontaneously to generate and to form images and 
spiritual, universal likenesses and to harbour them within itself and 
to impregnate itself with them. And although the soul, when it is joined 


4 ”He is not accustomed to perform for them anything they could equally well 
do themselves.” This great axiom of da Silva's ought to imply that since (as he tells us 
a few lines down) the human soul was created capable of doing all the perceiving it needed 
independently of the body, the body's role in the process of perceiving is dispensable 
and redundant. Why then was the human soul not allowed to get on with what it could 
do "equally well itself,” without the luxury of the body's aid? Or is the axiom not of 
universal application after all — and is it only to be applied selectively? Another difficulty 
with this piece of da Silva is that he seems to be trying to explain the joining of two 
independent and disparate creations — body and soul — in terms of the human creature, 
granted autonomy of action for its own benefit as it were. Yet elsewhere da Silva claims 
that the purpose of this "hybridization” of dust and ether was to serve as a bridge 
between heaven and earth — a reason which is quite distinct from the anthropocentric 
one offered here. 

5 This is a circular argument because it is God who, in the first place, chose to 
create humans with the ability to shift for themselves, while withholding this ability from 
those other beings called angels. If it is an indication of grace and mercy to be granted 
the capacity for active striving, then why was it arbitrarily denied the angels? 

6 That the body has a role to play in the process called perception — at least of 
objective reality — he concedes. So the human soul is capable of cooperating with the 
human body and thus need not be identical with souls of angels which are allegedly disem¬ 
bodied at all times. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


441 


to the body, does not perceive without it, once the soul is separated 
from the body, it is capable of perceiving without it and, consequently, 
of being immortal and independent of it. 


Chapter 5 

Wherein is Proven the Immortality of the Soul 
in Respect to the Will 


The will, being close to the understanding, is called intellectual 
appetite by the philosophers, and with good reason, because there can 
be no willing without understanding. As soon as the understanding 
recognizes a thing to be good, the will immediately attempts to obtain 
it. And whereas in the will and in the understanding the same motiva¬ 
tions appear and militate, yet in the will they are more evident. For 
when good things such as bliss, wisdom and honour are named collec¬ 
tively or severally, everyone desires them and pursues them with the 
will, because these things, abstractly considered, belong to the spiritual 
realm. But when it comes to particulars, such as the ways and means 
required to obtain these good things, then corporeal appetites come into 
play, rushing headlong this way and that, dissipating, as it were, the 
spiritual desire. 1 We are thus forced to consider the will as an 
independent entity from the body, since it aspires to virtue which it 
exerts itself to obtain and possess. But being so heavily weighted down 
by all things corporeal, it tries, as it were, to free itself of the body and 
to destroy that hulk by hook or by crook. Surely the will can hardly 
have anything corporeal about it, if it goes around despising and rejec¬ 
ting all worldly things solely in order to cleave to God. So also souls, 
though they be firmly shackled to bodies and, as it were, held prisoners 
and captives in them, strive to emancipate themselves from brutish 
instincts, and to live, angel-like, without them. 


l The author introduces this term "spiritual desire” (desejo espiritual) without 
explanation of how it relates to the intellectual appetite (apetite intelectual), which, he 
told us at the outset of this chapter, is a synonym for the will. Da Silva here, as elsewhere, 
apparently impervious to the demands of rational discourse, invokes terms and even 
axioms without explanation. 



442 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Quite blind and quite deaf is he who, after having the foregoing 
pointed out to him, fails to recognize in himself a soul independent of 
the body, as regards both understanding and will. But if even then his 
obstinate and hardened heart is not moved, then let me ask him what 
he thinks of the steadfast and valorous servants of God who, to sanc¬ 
tify His holy name, deliver their own and their childrens' lives to flame 
and sword? Will he say that they are acting stupidly? Yet 'Abraham 
showed piety consenting to sacrifice his son Yishaq, as did the latter 
in his willingness to be sacrificed. If none of these arguments suffices 
to move this heart of ice and stone, since he professes to be a jew, let 
me ask him what he would do if forcibly urged to worship idols by 
enemies of our faith? If he is so unswervingly attached to his erroneous 
opinion, he will surely submit to idol-worship and, in that case, I would 
ask, why does he call himself a jew? But if, after all, he would choose 
martyrdom for the honour of God and the Law, where then is the reward 
for such a meritorious endeavour? 2 

O that this inglorious earthworm would emerge into the light and 
realize that it is out of sheer arrogance that he denies the advantage 
God gave him over brutes, and out of a desire to separate himself from 
all Yisra'el. Let him know that he who denies the immortality of the 
soul comes very close to denying God himself, for he who neither fears 
nor expects anything from another life has no fear of God and where 
that is lacking, there is no knowledge of God, because the fear of God 
is the gate to wisdom and to knowledge of God. Indeed, there is no limit 
to the depravity, impudence, wickedness and presumption in the 
behaviour, thoughts and works of the man who believes that after death 
he cannot attain and possess a higher good than he had before being 
born. In short, if the soul ends with the body, long live triumphant 
Epicurus! — as an ancient moralist said. Then, to the accompaniment 
of cheers and jubilation, the day will come when the unhappy life of 
the one who sank so low as to compare his leprous and filthy soul to 
the soul of a vixen and to that of a dog, will be extinguished. 


2 This sentence, which may strike the reader as a non-sequitur, is of a piece with 
the rest of this paragraph. It all rests on the implicit premise that man is incapable of 
altruistic acts. But even within this framework da Silva's reasoning does not recognize 
(as did da Costa) that belief in a cause and the promise of posthumous renown might 
be powerful motives. Cf. da Costa's analogy with the brave warrior, «Examination», 
chap. 18. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


443 


Chapter 6 

Wherein is Illustrated the Same Proof 
in Respect to Divine Justice 


It is certain that if good management and prudence are to obtain 
in society, the promise of reward and the threat of punishment must 
be great enough to effectively encourage and deter. Therefore God, who 
governs the world with Providence, rewards the righteous and punishes 
the wicked. Yet we see that many leave this vale of tears without 
adequate chastisement or reward for their conduct: indeed, in some 
instances, the quality of their lives is the opposite of what they deserve. 
We see some of the best who, far from being rewarded or recompensed, 
spend their life in miserable penury and thus end their days. Others 
we see who, not worthy even to have been born, never seem to die and 
the more worldly goods they accumulate, the ranker their arrogance 
and the more ostentatious their life-style grows and until the very end 
of their long lives they neither respect their fellow men nor fear or even 
remember God. Since God did not see fit to redress the balance during 
these people's lifetime, He will no doubt do so after their death, for 
otherwise divine justice would be found lacking and deficient. Conse¬ 
quently we must perforce admit the existence of a world-to-come, 
wherein souls dwell and where God's justice is entirely vindicated, 
everyone receiving his deserts. Why should we tire ourselves looking 
for many examples of this truth? Let the one of Ya c aqob and c Esav 
suffice, which makes it clear as daylight. God says about them: 

[...] I loved Ya c aqob. And I hated c Esav [...] [Mai. 1, 2-3]. 

It can readily be shown that this love was to be expressed with 
spiritual goods in a future life, for as to worldly goods in this life, many 
more tangible expressions of love seem to have been lavished on c Esav 
than on Ya c aqob. Ya c aqob spent his life in absences from home, fears 
of persecution, troubles, travails and exiles. He died far from the Holy 
Land, leaving his descendants to fall into harsh Egyptian slavery. 
He himself described his years as few and evil when speaking to Paro 
[Gn. 47, 9]. c Esav, on the other hand, lived a longer life, 1 held power as 


i According to an ’aggada, Esau survived Jacob; cf. B.T. Sota 13a. 



444 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


a ruler, transmitted nobility to his lineage and possessed a great abun¬ 
dance of worldly goods. Therefore the true goods, destined for those 
whom God loves, must be spiritual in nature and exclusively so. 2 This 
truth may be confirmed by the great effort expended by our holy 
patriarchs to secure burial nowhere else but in the Holy Land, which 
would have been pointless had they come to the conclusion that death 
puts an end to everything. 3 Now, since they strove to obtain this 
burial, it is certain that they expected some future good to come from 
it, which could only have been the resurrection of the dead and the glory 
due to the blessed souls restored to their glorified bodies. It is therefore 
an incontrovertible truth that they expected or looked forward to 
another life. 


Chapter 7 

Wherein this Truth is Totally Confirmed 
by Quotations from Scripture 


Besides the evidence provided by the holy Law — which says 
that God breathed into the nostrils of the first man the breath of life 
[Gn. 2, 7] — as well as the verse: 

And God created man in His image [...] [Gn. 1, 27] 

— never understood by anyone to mean anything else but the soul, 
hereby revealed to be the exact image of God and as incorruptible as 
the breath of God — He Himself says through Yesa c yahu: 

And souls I have made [Is. 57, 16]. 

Since He singles out souls, saying that He made them, this shows 
that they have no efficient and immediate cause other than God. As it 
is written: 


Behold, all the souls are Mine, as the soul of the father and as the soul 
of the son — Mine are they [...] [Ezek. 18, 4]. 


2 Indeed these gifts may have been spiritual, but why in another world? 

3 Cf. Bereshit Rabba, Vayehi and B.T. Ketubot 111a. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


445 


The Psalmist says: 

As for me, in righteousness shall I behold Thy face; I shall be satisfied, 
when awake, with Thy likeness [Ps. 17, 5]. 

What is here set forth is, as Rasi explains, the resurrection of 
the dead: 


"in righteousness shall I behold Thy face”: this refers to the future life: 
'then shall I see Thy face by means of righteousness, for with it, 0 Lord, 
Thou wilt cause my sentence to go out from before Thee.’ "I shall be 
satisfied, when awake, with Thy likeness”: as if to say: T shall be 
satisfied with contemplating Thy likeness at the time of the Resurrec¬ 
tion of the Dead, for they are in Thy image’. 

I, however, explain the second half of this verse in the following 
way: Thy image (my soul contained in this mortal body), is as it were 
asleep and blind and therefore lacks and craves for a vision of Thee; 
however, at that time I shall satiate myself with it and shall be satisfied 
when I awake from this sleep and will have a glorified body in which 
I shall not sleep and that will be at the time of the Resurrection.’ 

The Psalmist exclaims: 

Surely God will redeem my soul from the power of the pit when He 
will take me. Sela [Ps. 49, 16] 

and we will not interpret this to mean that the Psalmist was boasting 
that he would not die, for there is no one who expects such a thing. 
What he was looking forward to can therefore only be redemption and 
life after God would take him from the grave. Further proof of this truth 
comes from the verse where God is called "God of ’Abraham, God of 
Yishac, God of Ya c aqob.” [Ex. 3, 6] They must be alive as regards their 
principal constituent, which is the soul, because it is as impossible for 
the Pure Act which is God to compare and accommodate itself to the 
total nothingness — which would be man’s lot if death were an end 
without return — as it is for Him to be called God of non-existence. 1 


i Cf. Matt. 22, 31-33; Mark 12, 26-27; Luke 20, 37-38. The argument, exactly as 
expanded by da Silva, had been used by Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr and 
Irenaeus to prove immortality as well as resurrection. Cf. Harry Austryn Wolfson, 
"Immortality and Resurrection in the Philosophy of the Church Fathers,” Religious 
Philosophy, Cambridge (Mass.), 1961, 69-103: 70-71. 



446 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Add to this the divinely inspired dreams which are recorded in the 
Law, the revelations and prophecies, all of which belong solely to man's 
spiritual part, and what you get is something divine, to which God 
attaches Himself. And even if doubts could be raised in respect of all 
other prophecies, there is no explaining away the prophecy of Mose, 
of whom the Law states (Ex. 33, 11): 

And the Lord spake unto Mose face to face as a man speaketh unto his 
friend [...]. 

As God has no face, this amounts to saying that God spoke to Mose 
without intermediary. Now since it is certain that God is wholly spirit, 
without any admixture of matter, it follows that the recipient of God's 
communication must also be spiritual, without alloy of matter. He 
communicates directly with the soul, as may be seen in the case of 
Mose's prophecy. Therefore the soul is totally spiritual and, conse¬ 
quently, incorruptible. It seems that Bil c am was aware of this when he 
requested for himself the death of the righteous, which is tantamount 
to asking for the bliss of the world-to-come. For had he not contemplated 
the existence of such bliss or of anything else beyond the grave, dying 
the death of the just or of the unjust would have been a matter of indif¬ 
ference to him. In fact it might have suited him better to die (as indeed 
he did) from the blow of a sword, without suffering the pains and 
illnesses which sometimes beset the righteous. 

The human soul's immortality has now been convincingly demon¬ 
strated by infallible and irrefutable arguments, confirmed by Scripture. 
We shall next show that everything our opponent alleges to deny this 
truth, is false and absurd and unworthy even of barbarian and brutal 
heathens, let alone of one who professes to be a jew and to observe the 
Law. We are convinced, however, that he will ultimately deny even the 
Law, unless he turns over a new leaf and repents, for, as David says: 


One abyss calls to another [...] [Ps. 42, 8] 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


447 


Chapter 8 

Concerning a False Definition of the Human Soul 
and the Ignorance of the One who Proposed it 


We got wind of a book that the adversary — the one who forces 
us to write — was trying to have printed. We were very eager to see 
it, and managed to obtain a single quire, which we can faithfully attest 
is in his own hand. Here now follows a word for word transcript. We 
have merely divided it into sections, for the clearer refutation of each 
of his points. This is what he says: 

Chapter 23 1 

What Constitutes the Soul? Who Engenders It? 

Is It Mortal or Immortal? 

As we are going to deal with the question of whether the soul is 
mortal or immortal, it is necessary to enquire in the first place just 
what constitutes the soul, especially since some ignoramuses speak of 
it as of a damsel housed in our bodies, and one even sees paintings depic¬ 
ting souls leaving purgatory. But what we would call the soul of man 
is the vital spirit which animates the individual, and which is contained 
in his blood. The human being lives, works and moves by that spirit, 
which lasts him until nature or violent means extinguish it. There is 
no difference between the soul of an animal and the soul of a human 
being other than that man's soul is rational and the beast's is devoid 
of reason. As for the rest, as far as being born, living and dying is 
concerned, man and beast are exactly the same, as Selomo put it 
[cf. Eccl. 3, 19], and man has no pre-eminence over a beast as regards 
permanence, for all is vanity. Just as the soul of an animal, as the Law 
says, is contained in its lifeblood, so too is the human soul, which is 
vital spirit, also in the blood. 


l Da Silva refers here and further to a numbering of chapters which he found 
in the quires taken from da Costa's original book. This numbering corresponds as 
follows to the numbering of chapters in da Costa's extant book: Chapter 23 = Chapter 1; 
Chapter 24 = Chapter 2; Chapter 25 = Chapter 3. 



448 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Aside from its other omissions and flaws, this fake definition has 
neither order nor the diagnosis which is essential to true definitions, 
but merely consists of a conglomeration of incoherent words. First 
he says that the soul of man is the spirit of life in the blood, then 
that the soul of an animal is contained in its life-blood and that in 
the same way the soul of man, which is his vital spirit, is in the blood. 
Let us consult the sacred text of which this pseudo-definer blindly 
wishes to avail himself. 

When granting to the children of Yisra'el permission to eat meat 
once they would enter the Holy Land, God said: 

Only be firm so as not to eat the blood, for the blood is the soul and 
thou shalt not eat the soul with the flesh [Dt. 12, 23]. 

Why tire ourselves out explaining the metaphoric nature of one 
passage to a person who so obstinately takes all literally? Let him 
believe man is a trunk with branches and roots, since the Law says man 
is a tree of the field (Dt. 20, 19). Let him believe the stones of the Holy 
Land are pure iron, since that is what the text says (Dt. 8, 9). Let him 
say that man can eat souls of animals and batten on them. 2 For, if 
blood is not forbidden because of its being blood, but rather because 
of its being a soul, he could permit the eating of blood of an animal 
slaughtered yesterday or the day before, or long enough ago for the 
blood to have congealed. 

Such a philosopher could scarcely be made to understand that the 
soul is an incorporeal, indivisible substance, present in everything and 
everywhere, the source and principle of life, animating the whole 
anatomy. Blood, on the other hand, is obviously corruptible and 
divisible, so far from being a soul or even a derivative of the soul, that 
it does not possess any life nor is it any intrinsic part of an animal, 
for the parts of an animal cannot be lost in the morning and restored 
in the afternoon as is the case with blood, which is a liquid substance, 
composed of various humours on which the limbs feed. 3 After each 
limb has taken as much blood as it needs, it expels the rest as being 


2 When da Silva writes "let him say that man can eat souls of animals” the author 
misrepresents da Costa's thought, for he is implying that da Costa's literalism would 
lead to spiritual cannibalism, whereas in fact, da Costa could never have said such a thing 
without opposing the Law, which, for whatever reason, categorically forbids the consump¬ 
tion of blood. 

3 The argument is obscure, for the difference is surely not between blood and 
other parts of the body, but quantitative. Cf., however, infra, chap. 11 and ibid., note 2. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


449 


useless and superfluous, for, if retained, many dangerous maladies 
could ensue. Such vile and lowly matter could therefore hardly be the 
soul. But the Law calls it thus because the blood is the principal tool 
of the soul, operating by means of the vital spirits, which are some 
subtle vapours generated in the heart of the best and purest part of 
the blood. 4 It is in this metaphorical way that the Law calls even more 
remote objects "soul”, as, for instance: 

No man shall take in pledge the nether millstone or the upper millstone, 
for he taketh the soul in pledge [Dt. 24, 6] 

that is to say, the instrument to earn one's bread to sustain life and 
thus, consequently, the soul. What is more, the Law, explaining itself, 
does not say that the soul is blood, but rather that it is in the blood: 

For the soul of the flesh is in the blood [...] [Lv. 17, 11] 

as if to say, the blood is as it were the link and the means by which 
the soul informs the limbs and joins with them. 

How can one suffer an ignoramus who, unaware of the a.b.c. of 
philosophy, dares to propose definitions of souls? His ignorance is in 
fact so great and so crass that he completely misunderstands the words 
of the Law concerning the soul of brute animals and applies them 
literally to the soul of man, without any other support than his own 
opinion, not realizing that, far from equating animal and human blood, 
the Law does not prohibit the consumption of human blood. 5 

Now if it were not sufficient to realize the difference between 
humans and beasts by observing their limbs, complexion and posture 


4 It is not clear how this theory differs from da Costa's in any significant way: 
the soul is in the blood and what the Bible calls "soul” is simply the vital spirit which 
resides in the blood. Moreover, da Silva lets loose upon us here "vital spirits” and "subtle 
vapours”, not to mention "the best and purest part of the blood.” None of these new 
terms is explained. 

5 While it is true that the interdiction at Lv. 7, 26 explicitly mentions only fowl 
and beasts yet — since the context did not require its mention — this verse should not 
be taken as a licence to consume human blood. If da Silva, ignoring the context, would 
insist on inferring such a licence from this verse, he would still have to contend with 
Lv. 3, 17, which does not specify fowl and beasts, but says "all blood”. If he ignores context, 
he would have to accept that latter verse literally, to include all blood. However, da Silva, 
though he invokes only "the Law,” may have had in mind a reading of the above-cited 
verses that led the rabbis to conclude that the Law had not forbidden the blood of humans, 
fish and locusts. Cf. B.T. Keritot 20b, 21b; Ketubot 60a. 



450 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


— man raising himself up toward heaven and the beast sniffing and 
foraging in the ground — it should have been sufficient for a jew 

— considering that it is only the Law that endows him with such great 
nobility and excellence in the eyes of the lawless heathens — that the 
superiority of the human soul is revealed through the words of the Law. 

See what it says: 

And the Lord God formed the man, dust from the ground and breathed 
into his nostrils the soul of life [...] [Gn. 2, 7]. 

He could have noted: 

A lamp of the Lord is the soul of man [...] [Pr. 28, 27] 

where the wise man shows how vastly this misguided glossator strayed 
in misinterpreting: 

[...] so that the pre-eminence of man above the beast is nought, for all 
is vanity [Eccl. 3, 19] 

since the Preacher was talking here only about the corporeal 
preeminence, as he himself explained, saying: 

I made great works, I built myself houses, I planted myself vineyards 
[Eccl. 2, 4] 

and, continuing to discourse upon earthly pleasures, concludes: 

[...] and behold, all was vanity [...] [Eccl. 2, 11]. 

So, neither from the false definition of man, nor from the 
misunderstood quotation from Selomo is the soul proved mortal, but 
rather the exact opposite is demonstrated, for Selomo up to this point 
was only speaking of the body and of that which men can discern with 
their eyes, whereas the soul is invisible. The false definition derives 
from a misunderstood and misapplied verse in the Law. Misunderstood, 
for it involves taking literally what is meant metaphorically, as we have 
already shown. Misapplied, because what the text says of the soul of 
the beast he transfers to the human soul. Hereby our opponent shows 
his understanding to be inferior even to that of an elephant, to whom 
further on he attributes prudence. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


451 


Chapter 9 

That the Human Soul Does Not Issue from Matter 
Like Those of Brutes and a Reply to the Contrary Argument 


Our adversary goes on to say: 

Now that we know what a soul is, let us ask who engenders it and puts 
it into the body of a human being. We reply that it should be obvious 
that man engenders the soul of another by natural procreation, just 
as animals engender the souls of other animals belonging to the same 
species, e.g., an elephant engenders another elephant equally wise; the 
fox, another fox, just as cunning; the horse, another horse, just as 
strong, obedient and brave. A human being, consequently, engenders 
another human being possessing his own qualities, namely reason and 
intelligence, the very ones distinguishing him from brutes; there can 
be no doubt about this matter. Were it not so, procreation of human 
beings would be imperfect, and at variance with the divine will which 
decreed that by means of the semen given to all His creatures, they 
engender in their own likeness, and by this means all species are 
preserved and multiply. To man in particular was said: "And God 
blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill 
the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea’ 
[...]” [Gn. 1, 28]. And to show that man engenders a creature in all 
respects like unto himself, Scripture says: "And 'Adam lived a hundred 
and thirty years and begat a son in his likeness, after his image [...]” 
[Gn. 5, 3]. Rational 'Adam, lord on earth over the creatures, begat a 
son in his image and likeness, perfect in all respects, without external 
intervention in the act of procreation. Selomo says as much, when he 
declares that men and animals are born the same way. This allows of 
neither doubt nor contradiction: it is confirmed by Reason and the Law. 

One absurdity leads to another. This unlettered antagonist, having 
started out with his false proposition that human and animal souls are 
alike, falls into his next error of saying that brutes and human beings 
are also alike and equal as regards the act of procreation and that the 
souls of men issue from matter, as do the souls of animals. He does 
not take into consideration the superiority with which the creation of 
the human soul was endowed, insufflated into man by God Himself *; 
nor does he take account of what God says: 

[...] souls have I made [Is. 57, 16] 


1 Da Silva seems to assume here — with Jerome, Augustine and Calvin, but 
against the traducianism of Tertullian and Luther — that according to Scripture every 



452 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


nor of what Selomo says: 

A lamp of the Lord is the soul of man [...] [Pr. 20, 27]. 

He staggers about, blinded by stubbornness, and tramples 
everything underfoot, because, according to him, man would be an 
imperfect creation, a passing wind, if he did not totally reproduce 
himself, body and soul, just as a horse begets another horse. To shore 
up his foolish thesis he cites the verse in Genesis (1, 28) wherein God 
blesses man and commands him to be fruitful and multiply and fill the 
earth. In fact all that can be derived from this verse is the command 
for man to enter into lawful matrimony with the purpose of producing 
legitimate offspring to populate the world and that he must not neglect 
his share of this work, which is to give his seed. 2 

Though, in contrast with animals, man does not transmit his soul 
to his offspring, this in no way implies imperfection, since he functions 
to his full capacity. 3 Nor is he in this respect inferior to animals, 
because the souls of brutes are potentially contained in matter and 
thence are converted into action, but the rational soul — since it is of 
a higher degree and has no traffic with or dependence on matter — must 
needs proceed from a higher level. Man has great superiority over 
animals. True, the soul which issues from his seed is of the same type 
as the soul that issues from the seed of animals and while they are in 
the womb, both live and grow like plants, feeding on the qualities of 
the vegetable soul. The human creature, however, at a certain point 
receives its rational soul. But even then, it lives an animal life, using 
the sensitive, motive soul, as is recognized by all philosophers and 
doctors, who base their opinions on incontrovertible reasons and 
arguments which we cannot go into here. So we see that the seminal 
and generative qualities of man are in no way inferior to those of 
animals. They possess the same potential vegetable-sensitive soul which 


human soul is insufflated by God and that Genesis 2, 7 applies not to Adam alone, but 
to all his progeny, too. Cf. (1624).II.5, note 4. If, however, when he uses the past tense 
("the creation of the soul was [foi ] endowed”, etc.) he refers exclusively to Adam, then 
his reasoning is void, because the prototype of every spe-cies was created by God. 

2 Our author believes that the blessing-command to be fruitful and multiply, 
though expressed in the plural and addressed to both man and woman, was nonetheless 
meant exclusively for men. Cf. B.T. Yebamot 65b. 

3 It sounds as if man's "full capacity” is less than the animals'. And though da 
Silva absolves him herewith of all moral imperfection, man's capability, if we are to believe 
him, is nonetheless physically inferior. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


453 


is converted into action, transforming and adorning matter and the 
human differs from the animal only in respect to certain distinguishing 
features, peculiar to his limbs, e.g., their place, order and beauty. This 
state of affairs continues until such time as the human embryo has been 
fashioned into organs which are capable of receiving and do receive 
the rational and intellective soul. This disposition and capacity proceed 
from the formative faculty inherent in human seed but not in that of 
animals. The latter is limited to forming limbs capable of housing only 
the sensitive soul. 

As to what he says about 'Adam — claiming that his begetting Set 
"in his likeness" at the age of one hundred and thirty years proves that 
man engenders the soul of his offspring — is an error deriving from 
a misapprehension of the text. For if these words refer to the soul, 
why should they not have been said about Kayin and Hevel, who were 
also sons begotten by 'Adam? Surely, if "likeness" is to be understood 
as a result of procreation, there is no reason to suppose that they did 
not have the same "likeness" as Set. Surely the "likeness" of which the 
verse speaks: 

And 'Adam lived a hundred and thirty years and begat in his likeness 

after his image and called his name Set [Gn. 5, 3] 

refers to Set's moral qualities and that is why the word was not applied 
to the first sons, because they were not to inherit the kind-heartedness 
and sterling qualities of their father, whereas Set, the true heir to his 
father's virtue, was to be the direct ancestor of the good people favoured 
by God. For this reason the text says of Set, the third son, what it did 
not say about the first two, namely that "'Adam begat in his likeness", 
meaning a true son and direct successor to the virtue and heritage that 
was his father's, differing from the first two sons. In the same way is 
to be understood: 

[...] 'Abraham begat Yishaq [Gn. 25, 19] 


and 

[...] for in Yishaq shall his seed be called [cf. Gn. 21, 12] 

since, although 'Abraham also begat Yisma c el and other sons, Yishaq 
was the sole heir to 'Abraham's virtue and good reputation, whereas 
in respect to the capacity for natural procreation all 'Abraham's sons 
were equal. 

His quotation from Selomo, which says that man, as far as birth 
and death are concerned, is just like any other animal, is irrelevant and 



454 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


does not merit a reply, because the Sage was referring, correctly, to 
bodies and we are discussing souls, which are not born and to which 
Selomo could not have referred, since he himself says: 

and the dust will return to the earth as it was and the spirit will return 
unto God who gave it [Eccl. 12, 7] 


and: 


A lamp of the Lord is the soul of man [...] [Pr. 20, 27]. 4 


Chapter 10 

That God Introduces the Souls into Human Bodies 
in a Way That is Hidden from Us 


Our adversary goes on to say: 

Those who say that souls are beings separate from the body, which 
God created all at once and stored in a granary as it were, whence He 
orders them put into the bellies of pregnant women, do not deserve 
to be listened to. These follies, dreamt up by the vain gentiles and still 
followed today by the Pharisees, are really unworthy of further discus¬ 
sion. Others say that these beings are newly created by God in the belly 
of pregnant women: another extraordinary idea, foreign to reason and 
the Law. Those who invented this opinion did so because they would 
not accept that the human soul was mortal, realizing that if the soul 
were indeed begotten by another human being in the same natural way 
as the souls of animals are begotten by other animals, then it would 
have to be mortal. Moreover, since this opinion lacks any support from 
reason or the Law and is in fact no more than flimsy guesswork, why 
waste time on examining and refuting its purported foundations? 

I do not know if any legislator has spoken more insolently and 
boldly than this reviver of the base and long dead and buried sect of 
Epicurus. The matter at hand is so weighty or, should we say, so trifling 
in his eyes, that he did not bother nor did it occur to him to cite the 


4 Da Silva has so far quoted this favourite text three times. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


455 


Law or adduce rational arguments. Nor could he have found any to 
justify his statement that some of us "dream up follies” or "have weak 
and flimsy notions” about the way souls enter bodies — one of the great 
wonders performed by God. Now whether He created them at one time 
en masse and stored them up in the world of the souls, or whether He 
goes on creating them one by one, is immaterial to our theory, and 
anyway, why should it be more difficult for God to create souls in one 
way than in another? 1 

Is He not omnipotent, so that He can create them how and when 
He wants? Is He not omniscient, so that He can introduce them into 
the bodies just when the bodies are capable of receiving them? Is He 
not omnipresent, so that He can supply them anywhere at any time? 
What madness to meddle in this matter with such confidence and 
impudence, making not only base but also extravagant affirmations. 
The formation of the human being in the womb; the variety, distinc¬ 
tion and beauty of human limbs; the concealment and efficacy of the 
qualities and capacities that God put into each one of them; the manner 
in which the seed sucks up as it were the mother's substance just like 
seed sown in the ground sucks up humidity; the way the embryo uses 
the properties of the vegetable soul to feed itself and grow before it 
feels and moves; how these clearly defined but still imperfect limbs 
acquire the faculties of movement and sensation — though not yet of 
perception — thanks to the sensitive soul; finally how by dint of further 
refinement these limbs are transformed into vessels and organs suffi¬ 
ciently adjusted for the intellective soul to enter into them: this entire 
phenomenon is so admirable, so filled with majesty and divine wisdom, 
that it turned the best philosophers' contemplation into amazement and 
caused the Psalmist to attribute it all to divine wisdom and power: 

Thy hands have made me and established me [...] [Ps. 119, 73]. 

Even though one could adduce various opinions and arguments 
concerning the precise time when the rational soul is introduced into 
the human body, since the principal arguments of this treatise are 
derived from the Law, which we follow closely, we declare the most 
probable hypothesis to be that the soul of the male enters the body forty 
days after birth and the soul of the female eighty days, corresponding 


l Da Silva is here insinuating that da Costa had denied the granary theory, etc., 
out of a lack of faith in God's omnipotence, although da Costa's incredulity in respect 
to such theories was not on these grounds. 



456 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


to God's command in Leviticus 12, which prescribes just that number 
of days of uncleanness to the lying-in woman before she appears in the 
Temple: forty for the male and eighty for the female. But in matters 
so occult and profound, which God reserved unto Himself, wise and 
serious men speak most prudently, whereas the ignorant and light¬ 
headed speak without consideration or respect, as does this one here, 
who exposes the limits of his poor education, lacking grounding and 
doctrine. 


Chapter 11 

About the Immortality of the Soul and the World to Come , 
Gainsaying the False Conclusion of the Adversary 


The adversary goes on to say: 

To the question as to whether the soul of a human being is mortal or 
immortal we reply that, from the preceding, it is evident that it must 
be mortal if it is contained in the blood, as we have already ascertained. 
It is in fact the vital spirit which dies and is extinguished before the 
human being can expire; indeed death would not have set in if the vital 
spirit, i.e., the soul, which breathes life into man, had not departed. 
This obvious and palpable truth is manifest in many places in Scrip¬ 
ture, which are irrefutable. The first proof is an argumentum ex silen- 
tio: the Law nowhere indicates that the human soul is immortal or 
that another life, whether of punishment or glory, awaits it; how 
inconceivable for the Law not to have mentioned such things! for God 
is not in the habit of concealing chastisement from man, but rather 
does He set it before him again and again, that its threat might dissuade 
him from evil, as may be seen in the Law. 

Earlier on we have clearly shown that the animal soul does not 
consist of blood and how much less so the human soul, since the latter 
is an incorporeal substance, invisible and incorruptible, whereas blood 
is a material of a totally opposite nature, subject to many sources of 
corruption, which it incurs continuously. Now when Scripture says that 
the soul of an animal is in the blood, it means that when the animal 
soul lacks blood, its principal driving force is gone and it can no longer 
operate. Ceasing to operate, it leaves the body and this is called 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


457 


death. 1 Seeing that the animal soul is not blood nor did the Law mean 
to say that it was, how much less can this be the substance of the human 
soul of which in fact it does not constitute any part. If our adversary 
were right — that the blood and the soul are so intimately connected — 
it would be unimaginable for the soul, whose nature is to animate the 
limbs, and which is the very source of life, to leave the matter of which 
it is an integral part. Blood, on the other hand, does not live nor is it 
intrinsically part of the body, as may be confirmed by considering the 
great quantity of blood which a body may lose in one hour and regain 
in another, without any change taking place in the quantity, location 
and number of the constituent parts of the body. 2 

Our latter-day sophist states that the blood and the life-spirit are 
extinguished and die before the person dies. This statement presents 
a contradictory proposition, both elements of which he claims to be 
true. It says that a transitionary time exists during which a person 
is half alive and half dead. Dead, because the soul has gone, due to 
the extinction of the vital spirit in the blood; not dead — because he 
says so, claiming that the vital spirit is extinguished before the human 
being dies. Let everyone take notice of how his erroneous opinion is 
self-destructive. 

Because the soul's immortality is apparent from so many places 
in Scripture and demonstrable by reason, his assertion to the contrary 
is astounding. The existence of the hereafter — glory for the souls of 
the righteous, condemnation for the souls of the wicked — is not open 
to doubt among the believers and faithful who do accept, seek and desire 
reason and doctrine. And for the rebels and faithless who deny the very 
roots of belief, of what use are proofs? But the reward desired by the 
prophets for whom David spoke: 

Unless I had believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of 

life [Psalm 27, 13] 


1 One might object that an animal-soul does not consist of blood, because the soul 
is immaterial. Yet now da Silva claims that in fact the blood is the driving-force of the 
soul, in other words, what was first presented as something totally spiritual turns out 
not to be so independent of matter after all. 

2 So da Silva (the medical practitioner) believes blood to be dead matter and not 
an intrinsic part of the body. 



458 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


what can it be but the world-to-come, also expressed in the words of 
'Abigayil to David: 

[...] yet will the soul of my lord be bound in the bond of life with the 
Lord thy God [...]? [ISm. 25, 29]. 

What could Yesa c yahu be designating, if not the world to come, 
when he says: 

[...] no eye had seen God beside Thee, who would do thus for the one 
that waiteth for Him [Is. 64, 3] 

as if to say: the goodness that only God saw, that goodness God will 
make known to the person who hopes in Him. As to why the Lord did 
not expressly inform us of this world which is hidden from us, He must 
have His reasons. Perhaps, as our sages suggested, it is because there 
is nothing to compare it to and because human senses are incapable 
of grasping it. To think that it is impossible for the Law to keep silent 
about it, amounts to obliging God to reveal and communicate to mortals 
that which He in His wisdom thought best to hide and to keep in store 
for those who live righteously. 3 As the Psalmist says: 

How great is Thy goodness which Thou hast stored away for those who 
fear Thee [...] [Ps. 31, 20] 

where the Hebrew word here translated "stored away,” literally means 
"hidden.” 

Our adversary's argument to the effect that an exposition of the 
workings of the world-to-come and a detailed description of the 
punishments it holds in store for the wicked would dissuade them from 
committing sins, has no validity, because the Law is replete with 
warnings and adequately sets before humankind the rewards and 
punishments awaiting them here below which, being concrete and 
visible, have a greater persuasive force. 4 Nor are promises and threats 


3 If the Law's silence were due to a desire to hide the mystery of the future life 
from mortals, how does da Silva explain other Scriptural books divulging it? 

4 Further on the author considers the threat of punishment in a hereafter the one 
and only real means for turning people into a manageable herd, whereas here he tells 
us that "the rewards and punishments awaiting them here below [...] have a greater 
persuasive force.” 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


459 


concerning the world-to-come entirely absent, as for instance the Law's 
promise to the righteous: 

[...] in order that it may be well with thee and that thou mayest lengthen 
days [Dt. 22, 7]. 

On the other hand it threatens the wicked: 

[...] cut off shall be cut off that soul, its iniquity is upon it [Nm. 15, 31]. 

So we have it from the mouth of the Lord: "in order that it may 
be well with thee" signifies this world and "that thou mayest lengthen 
days" refers to the world-to-come, which is all length. From the same 
source we have it that "cut off” signifies from this world and "shall 
be cut off" means from the world-to-come. That is the true meaning 
of these verses. 5 Whoever prefers this scoundrel's fictitious and 
forged ones, may have them and may perish miserably with him. He 
tirelessly studies and seeks ways to deprive himself of the bliss God 
held in store for him and which He will without any doubt impart to 
the God-fearing and true people of Yisra'el, as those saintly men who 
are our sages said: 

All Yisra'el have a share in the world-to-come [Mishna, Sanhedrin 10, 1]. 


Chapter 12 

Confirming the Truth of the World-to-Come, 
Further Disproving the Adversary's Specious Arguments 


Our adversary goes on to say: 

Further proof: God said to man: "[...] on the day that thou eatest [of 
the tree], thou shalt surely die” [Gn. 2, 17]. Thus man was created mortal, 
subject to death; otherwise, if his condition had been immortal, the 


5 This interpretation of the pleonastic phrase "cut off shall be cut off” lacked the 
consensus of the Talmudic sages. Cf. B.T. Sanhedrin 90b. 



460 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


body should have continued to exist, vivified by the spirit that God 
breathed into it. God also said unto him: "Dust thou art and to dust 
shalt thou return” [Gn. 3, 19], whereby He made clear to man his latter 
end and that — his high rank notwithstanding — his days would be 
numbered and he would return to his earlier condition. 


On the contrary, Holy Scripture here is informing us that man 
would not have been subject to death had he not sinned. From the 
converse of the words God addresses to him: 


[...] of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree 
of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for on 
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [Gn. 2, 16-17] 


it may be inferred that had he not eaten, he would not have died. This 
is confirmed by Scripture itself, which says: "on the day you eat, you 
shall die”, and also informs us that he lived on for many years. It is 
therefore certain that what he was sentenced to was not having his days 
cut short, but, from the day he ate of the tree, to be subject to death. 
His condition henceforth was to live out his days and finally die, as 
opposed to his immortal nature prior to eating of it. The truth of his 
erstwhile immortality is further confirmed by the fact that even after 
sinning he still had the means to avoid death had he stayed in the earthly 
paradise, because for death to overtake him it was necessary to expel 
him from there, as God says: 


[...] and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life 
and eat and live forever [Gn. 3, 22]. 


Now this possibility of living forever in no way contradicts reason, 
because if man could find a way to regain the radical humour and fine 
substance which he is losing continually, he would always constitute 
the same being and would never die. Yet die he does, because the 
sustenance through which he recovers what he loses always contains 
something deleterious, causing the corporal powers to weaken. If God 
had installed in this tree of life the property to restore an amount of 
substance equal to what was lost and to reinforce the corporal powers, 
who could doubt but that thanks to it man could maintain his life 
forever? But, leaving this question aside and granted that man must 
die, what has all this to do with the soul, which by its very nature is 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


461 


immortal? 1 Death is but the separation of the soul from the body and 
the return of each to its proper place. That is why God said to man: 

[...] for dust art thou and to thy dust shalt thou return [cf. Gn. 3, 19]. 

So there is no doubt that He calls dust that part of man which was 
taken from dust, namely the body. It is therefore quite reasonable that 
the body should return to its former state, as everything does that is 
subject to natural corruption. But he who misunderstands this verse 
to include the soul and believes that it too becomes dust, would have 
to first prove that the soul was dust at some former time. But it 
never was nor could it have been dust, but rather is it a divine spirit 
and a substance distinct in every way from the body. So, even in the 
absence of any other argument, it would be impossible to say that the 
soul is transformed into the same matter as the body, because two 
distinct substances — even were we to admit that both are subject 
to corruption — when returning to their original essence, would be 
reconstituted respectively into their distinct original essences; not both 
into one and the same. It is therefore an obvious absurdity to include 
the soul of man in the verse: 

[...] dust art thou and to thy dust shalt thou return [cf. Gn. 3, 19]. 

King Selomo long ago retorted, saying: 

[...] and the spirit will return unto God who gave it [Eccl. 12, 7]. 

And our Sages, discussing the soul, said: "return it to God as He 
gave it to you,” that is to say, as clean and as pure. 


l Surely it has everything to do with the question of immortality. For if it is a 
quality which the body could enjoy together with the soul — which da Silva believes would 
have been the case had Adam not sinned —, then, presumably, that "soul” would have 
remained eternally on earth within the body. The alleged other-worldly existence of the 
soul after its separation from the body must then be considered a result of Adam's sin 
and far from the ideal. As for his insisting that the soul by its very nature is immortal, 
so was the nature of Adam's body originally capable of immortality, yet — as da Silva 
has just informed us — this did not stop it being transformed into a mortal nature. God 
can — and did, as it appears — change the essential nature of His creation. And so, even 
if Adam's soul had started out immortal, how can da Silva be sure that it did not undergo 
the same change as his body? 



462 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Chapter 13 

The Patriarchs Knew of the World-to-Come 


The adversary goes on to say: 

Further proof: the patriarchs did not expect another life, nor did they 
reckon with its bliss, as can be inferred from their words. For when 
the Lord announced to 'Abraham that his reward would be great, he 
replied: "Lord God, what wilt Thou give me, and I go childless [...] and 
this houseman will be my heir” [Gn. 15, 2-3]? As if to say: T do not know. 
Lord, how this great prize is to be paid out to me, for I have no children 
who can be my heirs.’ Now, if 'Abraham had counted on another life, 
he would have expected the "great reward” to come at that later time, 
and he would not have exclusively alluded, as he did, to here-and-now 
blessings. These are the same blessings that Yishaq bestowed upon 
Ya c aqob, and are also the ones promised by the Law as reward for the 
righteous. Selomo, contemplating life's tribulations, but not foreseeing 
another and better one in the hereafter, considered the stillborn more 
fortunate than all men [cf. Eccl. 4, 3]. 

After 'Abraham had vanquished and despoiled the five kings of 
whom Genesis speaks (chapter 14), God appeared to him and said: 

[...] Tear not 'Abraham, I am thy shield, thy reward shall be exceedingly 
great’. And 'Abraham said: 'Lord God, what wilt Thou give me, seeing 
I go childless?’ [...] [cf. Gn. 15, 12]. 

Taken literally, we seem to have here a temporal promise made at 
a time when 'Abraham had good reason to be afraid of powerful, 
outraged enemies. In this context, 'Abraham, seeing himself childless, 
appropriately responds: "Lord God, what wilt Thou give me [...]?” And 
again, further on in the same chapter, when God promises him the 
inheritance of the land, he responds: 

[...] whereby shall I know that I inherit it? [Gn. 15, 8]. 

Thus, in the previously cited verse, temporal promises such as 
victory over enemies, peace and inheritance of the land are implied. 
'Abraham's response is partly that of one who feels no need for such 
a great reward, seeing he has no heirs, partly that of one who thinks 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


463 


it undignified to require, as it were, an advance. So God, coming to the 
rescue of 'Abraham's weakness and doubt, has him make that 
mysterious sacrifice recounted there, and shows him in prophetic vision 
the vicissitudes that would befall his descendants, who would be 
without number. 

But we could also interpret this passage figuratively, to signify 
spiritual riches, without doing violence to 'Abraham's response: "Lord 
God, what wilt Thou give me?” In that case it would mean: "Since I 
am deprived of children, which is the chief temporal boon, how do You 
come to promise me spiritual ones? For if my merits did not stretch 
far enough to earn me the inferior rewards of this world, how can I 
hope to obtain those of a higher category?” Moreover, 'Abraham well 
knew that for bliss to be perfect, it must include both spiritual goods 
for the soul in the world-to-come and also offspring here below. The 
psalmist says of the righteous God-fearing person: 

His soul shall abide in bliss and his seed shall inherit the earth 

[Ps. 25, 13]. 

So 'Abraham spoke well. Though he did not doubt the spiritual 
nature of the promise, he mentions his childless state so that God might 
rectify it and thus render his bliss total and perfect, a wish that was 
indeed to be realized in the fullness of time. Aside from many other 
convincing proofs 1 which can be adduced to show that 'Abraham 
knew of and awaited the bliss of the world-to-come, what better one 
is there than the sacrifice of Yishaq? For what reason, pray, did 
'Abraham agree to sacrifice him? If it was in order to obtain a reward, 
tell us what reward! If to have his own life prolonged, let us remember 
that he was an old man, already tired of life, whose worldly illusions 
had been dispelled by trials, troubles and wanderings. Worldly goods? 
He had many more than he needed and none could compensate for the 
loss of that son. And if nevertheless we were to concede that 'Abraham 
had in mind some worldly consideration — even though in truth he had 
none and could not have had any — what are we to say of Yishaq, a 
youth in the flower of his age? Why did he allow himself to be killed? 
Because he was fearful of some harm that would befall him if he 
disobeyed his father? But surely no harm could exceed the immediate 
death to which he voluntarily exposed himself! Surely it would have 


l It is regrettable that da Silva did not see fit to enumerate these proofs, especially 
if they could have gone any way to rescue his faltering position. 



464 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


been an extraordinary act of foolishness on his part unless it was to 
obtain the reward of that bliss in the hereafter which God holds in store 
for the righteous who so fear Him as to give up their lives for the sanc¬ 
tification of His holy name. No person with any sense would try to refute 
this argument. As for the allegation that God's promises refer 
exclusively to temporal riches, it is untrue, because they certainly can 
be shown to include those of a spiritual nature. This is why the blessing 
given by Yishaq to Ya c aqob begins with the conjunction "and”: 

And may God give thee of the dew of heaven [...] [Gn. 27, 28] 

a sure sign that previously another blessing had already been 
vouchsafed him. If this were not so, the conjunction would be out of 
place. In fact Yishaq's earlier blessing is expressly referred to in the 
preceding verse: "and he blessed him.” One may be sure that when the 
words "to bless” or "blessing” are used absolutely, without an explana¬ 
tion as to what sort of blessing is being given, it involves spiritual riches. 
A blessing involving temporal riches is never expressed absolutely but 
rather specifies these benefits one by one. An example of this is the verse 
which says that after 'Abraham's death: 

[...] God blessed Yishaq his son [...] [Gn. 25, 11] 

and it is not explained with what He blessed him, because the blessing 
consisted of spiritual riches. 

The adversary adduces Qohelet 4, 3 to claim that Selomo, 
"meditating on the evils which occur in one's life-time, but not 
foreseeing another and better one in the hereafter, considered the 
stillborn more fortunate than all men.” This paraphrase is totally 
absurd and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the text's 
intent. In many other places Selomo shows that he did not hold such 
an opinion. In the preceding chapter of Qohelet Selomo had intro¬ 
duced a wicked Epicurean 2 who claimed that human life has many 


2 The term "Epicurean” is an anachronism if Ecclesiastes is to be attributed to 
king Solomon: Epicurus died in 270 B.C.E. and king Solomon lived in the 10th century 
B.C.E. (Modern scholarship, however, places Ecclesiastes in the third century B.C.E.) 
Whether or not da Silva is aware of these dates, he is probably here using "Epicurean” 
as a generic name for scoffers and unbelievers, much like the Talmud and Leon Modena 
use the cognate word ’ apiqoros . This, in fact, is the very epithet by which Modena described 
da Costa in magen ve-sina ("These are the replies I have sent to the <apiqoros [...]”). 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


465 


characteristics in common with that of an animal (in this latter category 
one might well place the Epicureans themselves). Selomo concludes in 
this passage by saying that it would have been better for such a person 
not to have been born, because his birth was for evil, since he was only 
preoccupied with his bodily appetites. The Sage holds it a lesser evil 
to be deprived of everything than to lose one's soul. But those who are 
born for righteousness and the service of their Creator seek bodily 
satisfactions merely as a vehicle to attain spiritual beatitude. For them 
that same Sage predicts and promises the great riches of the world- 
to-come: 


[...] the day of death is better than the day of one's birth [Eccl. 7, 1] 

because to be born, even if one is to enjoy temporal goods, invariably 
entails anxieties and troubles here below, but when one dies a new life 
begins in which one enjoys the spiritual riches of the world-to-come, 
where for the blessed all is bliss, without any blending with the evils 
which attach to the goods of this world. 


Chapter 14 

The Souls of the Blessed Enjoy Glory and Praise God 


Our adversary goes on to say: 

The Psalmist writes: "Wilt Thou perchance perform wonders for the 
dead? or shall the lifeless arise and thank Thee? Shall Thy kindness 
perchance be told in the grave, Thy truth in perdition? Shall Thy 
wonders perchance be acknowledged in the darkness, and Thy 
righteousness in the land of forgetfulness" [Ps. 88, 11-13]? So, he denies 
that the dead are able to praise God and to rise for that purpose, for 
in their dwelling-place there is neither life, nor spirit. The grave is a 
land of perdition, a land of darkness and forgetfulness; only the living 
are able to praise God: "The dead do not praise the Lord, nor those 
that go down into the silence. But as for us we, the living, we will bless 
the Lord [...]” [Ps. 115, 17-18] and for this reason the vanity and misery 
of such a feeble and short-lived creature are repeatedly put forward 
as a plea for His mercy and compassion: "Behold, a few handbreadths 
hast Thou made my days, and my duration is as nothing before Thee: 
yea, as nought but vanity doth every man stand here [...] As but a shadow 



466 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


doth man walk about [...] Hear my prayer, 0 Lord, and my cry; take 
note of my tears, do not turn away Thine ear; for a stranger am I with 
Thee, a sojourner like all my fathers. Leave off from me Thy punish¬ 
ment, that I may recover strength, before I go hence, and am no more” 
[Ps. 39, 6-7; 13-14]. And, in another place: "And He, being merciful, is 
forgiving of iniquity and does not destroy; yea, many a time He turns 
His anger away and awakens not all His fury. And He remembered that 
they are but flesh, a spirit that passeth and retumeth not” [Ps. 78, 38-39]. 
And Iyob said: "My days were swifter than a weaver's shuttle and came 
to an end in the absence of hope for obtaining more. Oh remember that 
my life is but a wind; my eye will never again see happiness: The eye 
of him that saw me will behold me no more; Thy eyes upon me and 
I cease to be. The cloud vanished and passed away; so will he that goeth 
down to the grave not come up again. He will return no more to his 
house nor will his place recognize him any more” [Job 7, 6-10]. And 
further: "I loathed it with the sick man's aversion for food; I cannot 
live forever: leave me alone scourge me not, for my days are but nought” 
[Job 7, 16]. The same idea is expressed in chapter 14 and in countless 
other places [in Job], as well as throughout the Psalms; all of them 
concurring that man's life is brief and that there is no expectation of 
another after this one: "For there is hope for the tree: if it be cut down, 
it may still sprout again, and its young shoot will not cease. If its root 
become old in the earth, and its trunk die in the dust, through the scent 
of water will it flourish, and produce boughs as if it were newly planted. 
But man dies and is powerless and when man departs, where is he? 
The waters run off from the sea and the river fails and dries up. 
So man goes to sleep and will not rise; till the heavens be no more they 
will not awake and will not be roused out of their sleep” [Job 14, 7-12]. 
This is like saying: even if one could imagine the waters of the sea failing 
one day and torrential rivers drying up, it is still impossible to imagine 
man returning to life; not as long as the heavens subsist — that is to 
say: never will he awaken from the deadly sleep that awaits him. It 
is because this sleep is so deep and so long, that David said to the Lord: 
"[...] enlighten my eyes, that I may not sleep the sleep of death: lest 
my enemy say: T have overcome him”’ [...] [Ps. 13, 4-5] [This is like 
saying:] Thou, O Lord, seest that my enemy does not cease from 
pursuing me; I might easily fall prey to him. Do Thou enlighten my 
eyes so that I might see where I tread and guard me from him lest I 
sleep the sleep of death; lest that sleep befall me from which one does 
not awaken; lest my enemy boast that he has prevailed over me.’ So 
from all this it is evident that once he is dead, nothing remains of a 
man, nor does he ever return to life: "For when the numbered years 
are passed, then must I travel a path from which there is no return” 
[Job 16, 22] [This is like saying: The brief, numbered days of my life] 
will end and I shall go the way of all flesh on the road that is a one-way 
street.’. 


Many of the Scriptural verses here marshalled to prove the corrup¬ 
tible nature of the soul have very little pertinence to the question at 
hand, indeed, they are quite irrelevant. The only thing they do prove 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


467 


is that human beings die and there was no need to prove that fact. Thus 
we will limit ourselves to commenting just upon those verses which 
might otherwise furnish some semblance of support — however weak — 
for our adversary's thesis. So, disregarding the greater part of his proof- 
texts, which even to him seem inadequate, and which do no more than 
show the brevity of man's life and the days of his years to be limited, 
let us turn to those passages by which he lays the greatest store. It is 
written: 


Wilt Thou display wonders to the dead? [...] [Ps. 88, 11]. 

It would seem not, from what follows: 

Shall Thy mercy be related in the grave? Thy faithfulness in the place 
of perdition? [Ps. 88, 12] 

which he interprets as: 'let no one believe such a thing because for the 
dead there will be nothing of the kind’. On the surface this combina¬ 
tion of verses gives an impression which might deceive someone who 
interprets them all as a total negation of the hereafter. But the falsehood 
becomes apparent to one who learns to perceive the great distinction 
between the verses. For the first one is in respect to what God will do 
for the dead and the others are in respect to what the dead will do for 
God. Thus, the first question: 

Wilt Thou display wonders to the dead? 1 

is to be understood rhetorically, requiring an affirmative answer: 
'Yes, He will!’ and the other questions require a negative response: 
'No, in the grave those things which the Psalmist is asking about are 
not done’. 

So the Psalmist, in a state of anguish and affliction, is asking: 

Wilt Thou display wonders to the dead? 

as if to say: T am not raising the question because I have any doubts 
about this matter! Well do I know, O Lord, that You perform marvels 
for the living and for the dead. Yet let those which You will perform 
for me after death not be granted at the expense of those which You 
might otherwise perform for me whilst I am alive. Pray perform marvels 
for me now and save me from imminent danger!’ The Psalmist 


l Da Silva neatly glosses over the second part of this verse. 



468 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


immediately supplies the reason why God should perform favours and 
mercies on his behalf before he dies. That reason is that as long as he 
is alive he can praise and serve Him, things that cannot be done in the 
grave, as the ensuing verse shows: 

Shall Thy mercy be related in the grave? [...] 

and confirmed by: 

Not the dead can praise the Lord, nor all those that go down into the 
pit [Ps. 115, 17] 

as if to say that the soul which God puts into human beings, as long 
as it is attached to the body, can perform works through which God 
can be praised and through which a person may serve Him and merit 
reward, but among the dead there will be nothing of the kind. So this 
is a sort of admonition to the living that they may return to God and 
try to do meritorious works while they yet live, for after death there 
is no earning of merit, or accounting, or memory of anything that could 
profit the soul. Keeping this in mind, our Sages, with their erudite and 
enigmatic pithiness, declared one hour of repentance in this life to be 
worth more than all the lives of the world-to-come. They were refer¬ 
ring, of course, to merit and pardon, which after death there are no 
longer any means or occasions for winning. 

After all, what does the 7th chapter of Iyob point out if not the 
brevity and inconstancy of human life? And, as to what our adversary 
derives from chapter 14 of Iyob, namely that man will not rise again 
as long as the heavens subsist, it is great arrogance on his part to assure 
his readers that the heavens will never come to an end and that, conse¬ 
quently, the dead will never rise. On the contrary, the verse in Iyob 
assures us that — although the dead will not arise as long as the heavens 
subsist — once the heavens come to an end the moment will have 
arrived for the dead to be raised. That the heavens must, in fact, perish 
and pass away, is clearly revealed by the verses: 

These will perish, but Thou wilt exist, and all of them will wear out 
like cloth, like garments wilt Thou change them, and they will be 
changed [Ps. 102, 27] 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


469 


and: 


For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall 
have permanence before Me, saith the Lord, so shall exist permanently 
your seed and your name [Is. 66, 22] 2 . 

The words: 

[...] my eye will not again see happiness [Job 7, 7] 

cannot be understood to imply a negation of resurrection, because Iyob 
had never seen its bliss and therefore cannot be referring to it when 
he says that he will not see it again with his eyes. Therefore he must 
be speaking here of happiness which he had seen and possessed 
previously. Were we nevertheless to concede that in speaking of this 
happiness he was referring to the resurrection of the dead and that he 
herewith explicitly denied his having a share in it, then this constitutes 
a most effective and clear proof of its existence! For if we accept the 
interpretation that he denies his share in it only under pressure of afflic¬ 
tion and anguish, he repents and publicly recognizes its reality at his 
friends' remonstrations, when he says: 

Who knew not through all these that the hand of the Lord has wrought 
this ? in Whose hand is the soul of every living being and the spirit of 
all the flesh of man? [Job 12, 9-10]. 

Since he uses different words when referring to the souls of animals 
and those of humans he clearly indicates the difference which he now 
knows to exist between them, and declares that the human soul will 
live forever: 

If He were to set His heart upon him, He would gather unto Himself 
his spirit and his breath. All flesh would perish together and man would 
return unto dust [Job 34, 14-15] 3 . 


2 If da Silva wishes to infer from this verse in Isaiah that the present heaven and 
earth will be replaced by a new permanent heaven and earth, that would mean that there 
are two pairs of "heaven-and-earth” which succeed each other. That being so, the verse 
from Job and the verse from Psalm 102 lose much of their usefulness to his argument, 
for Job may be speaking of the second permanent heaven, while Psalm 102, of the tran¬ 
sitory first one (cf. Yalkut Simoni to Is. 66, 22). This passage may have kindled the idea 
for da Costa's epilogue on the eternality of the world. 

3 Da Silva implies that Job speaks these verses, an error for which he will be taken 
to task in da Costa's chapter 12. 



470 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


In this passage he consoles the righteous man, afflicted by troubles, 
and encourages him to be steadfast and to accept them from God's hand, 
because his soul will be gathered up when he dies and have its reward 
in the world-to-come, even though he failed to receive any in this world. 
And, while all other creatures are consumed, only man, though he be 
buried under the dust, will again rise above it and live. 


Chapter 15 

Concerning the Irrelevance of Several 
of the Adversary's Allegations 


Our adversary goes on to say: 

Those who claim that the human soul is immortal often respond to some 
of our arguments by excluding the body from immortality and 
establishing certain specious distinctions, which do not withstand 
examination. Thus they explain God's words: "thou art dust and to dust 
thou shalt return” [Gn. 3, 19] as being addressed to the body and not 
to the soul: a comic argument. In reality, God spoke to the human 
consisting of body and of the spirit of life, and it was to this total human 
being that He declared and made known that human years are 
numbered and that dust remains dust, never to be raised, thereby 
leaving no hope for immortality. This is why 'Adam has never again 
risen, having slept for so long, nor will he rise as long as the world 
and the skies above it subsist: that is, for all eternity. They, however, 
similarly misinterpret the Scriptural texts which say that the dead 
cannot praise God [cf. Ps. 115, 17], namely, that they cannot praise Him 
corporeally. But if that were the case, it would be false to say that the 
dead do not praise God, because a clean spirit, detached from the body, 
could praise Him better than one embodied. It would also be useless 
to present to God, by way of a plea for compassion, the argument 
concerning the brevity and vanity of man's life, if after death the soul, 
or spirit, survives to begin a new life — blissful, eternal and 
undisturbed. But it is precisely because this is not so that any afflicted 
person may say: "Remember that my eye will not again see happiness” 
[Job 7, 7]. When they get to verses such as: "And He remembered that 
they are but flesh, a spirit that passeth and will not return” [Ps. 78, 
39], they interpret them to mean that the spirit will not return to enter 
that mortal body, but will return to enter an immortal body. They do 
not see, however, that if the spirit were to return to such a body, it 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREA TISE 


471 


would be an even fuller return, and then that return could never be 
designated by the words "will not return." Their absurd distinctions 
and subterfuges merely serve to avoid facing the overwhelming truth. 
Indeed, 'Abraham said: Behold now, I have begun to speak unto the 
Lord, though I am dust and ashes" [Gn. 18, 27]. Now, had 'Abraham's 
spirit been immortal and destined for an immortal body, then 'Abraham 
would not be dust and ashes, nor could he truthfully have described 
himself as such. Rather would he have been an immortal creature and, 
as far as the body is concerned, considering its relatively minor impor¬ 
tance, he should not have borrowed its name to call himself dust, for 
things generally take their names from their dominant and most 
valuable component. The principal part of man is his spirit. If it is 
immortal and a being unto itself, then man too is immortal and should 
not call himself dust, though his body be dust, especially if it is given 
him only for a limited span. Knowing his transitory and corruptible 
state, 'Abraham was doubly aware of it when he had to talk to God. 
Then, more than ever, he humbly acknowledges and confesses his 
unworthiness. In the same way are to be understood the words: "[...] 
thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return" [Gn. 3, 19]. These words 
could not have been used to describe the man of flesh and bones with 
whom God was speaking if his spirit were immortal, for then he would 
not become dust. Selomo well realized this when he said that man has 
no pre-eminence over a beast as regards permanence, for all is vanity: 
"The fate of the sons of men and the fate of the beasts, indeed the same 
fate befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have 
all one kind of spirit; so that the pre-eminence of man above the beast 
is nought; for all is vanity” [Eccl. 3, 19]. The imaginative commentators, 
to explain away this verse, say: "all is vanity, except the soul"! This 
explanation of theirs ties in very nicely with all the rest of the verse, 
wherein is demonstrated that the human being is in no way more perma¬ 
nent than the beast, that man and beast have the same kind of spirit 
and that, consequently, all is vanity: "Everything goeth unto one place: 
everything came from the dust, and every thing returneth to the dust. 
Who knoweth that the spirit of man ascendeth upward and the spirit 
of the jument descendeth under the earth" [Eccl. 3, 20-21]? 'When all 
is said and done, I came to the conclusion that there is nothing better 
for man than to enjoy the work of his hands and that this is his portion; 
nor does he derive any other profit from his existence’: "And so did 
I perceive that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice 
in his own works: for that is his portion [...]" [Eccl. 3, 22]. Man is not 
granted another life; with the one he now has he must make do. If he 
wishes it carefully kept, let him fear God and observe His command¬ 
ments [cf. Eccl. 11, 13]; thus will he enjoy the fruit of his labour. 


Our latter-day sophist accumulates sham arguments and counter¬ 
arguments on which no one but an idler will waste his time. What 
difference does it make that the human body is formed from dust and 
to dust must return, as far as the soul is concerned, which never had 
anything to do with dust, either upon entering or leaving the body? Nor 



472 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


was the body itself ever literally dust. If it had been, 'Adam would not 
have said of Hava: 

[...] bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh [...] [Gn. 2, 23] 

and would, instead, have said "dust of my dust.” It is simply ridiculous 
to attempt to respond to this argument by saying "God spoke with living 
man when he called him dust: therefore He included the soul which 
is part of living man,” for whoever heard of speaking [with] the dead? 1 
Now with the living, many things are discussed which pertain 
exclusively to the body, though the soul be present when they are said. 
For example, when a person is told to eat, drink or sleep; when he is 
told that such and such an illness will befall him; the addressee is a 
total human being. As such he is possessed of a soul, to be sure, yet 
none of these communications concern his soul. Similarly, the sentence 
pronounced upon the man of dust: "you are of dust and shall be 
returned to dust,” does not extend to the soul. In any judgment of human 
beings it is meet that they be reminded of their body's origin. Let them 
never forget it, nor let them be fooled by seeing it in a state so far 
removed from its base origin, which was dust. For to dust it shall return, 
no matter how healthy, honoured, beloved and exalted it happens to 
be at any given time. Now, those who interpret the verse: 

The dead will not praise God [...] [Ps. 115, 17] 

to mean that this applies only to their bodies, explain it well and I myself 
have earlier expatiated on this. Scant attention is warranted by his silly 
argument that if the dead could praise God spiritually they would do 
so more effectively and that the Psalmist should indeed have said: 
"The dead will praise God.” Our adversary, as is his wont, jumps to 
conclusions and imagines that we would have the word "dead” 
designate those blessed souls which have been freed and unburdened 
of their bodies. The angels praise God continuously, as Yesa c yahu 
testifies, who saw the Lord seated on a high throne with seraphim 


l The Portuguese text reads: nao ha no mundo falar o homem morto ("whoever 
heard of a dead man speaking?’’); this makes no sense. Possibly the word com has fallen 
out. However, if com is to be supplied (or adopted), an inconsistency is created, since 
da Silva believes in communication with the dead (e.g., Saul and Samuel). 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


473 


standing above Him, crying out to one another, exalting the Lord 
and saying: 

[•••] Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of His 

honour [Is. 6, 3]. 

And Yehezqel: 

Then a spirit took me up and I heard behind me a voice of great rushing: 

"Blessed be the honour of the Lord from His place." [Ezek. 3, 12]. 

So, who can doubt that the souls of the blest, once separated from 
their corporeal prison, also have their own way of praising God, and 
of contemplating and perceiving Him each one in his measure, as 
behoves truly angelic spirits? Assuredly, in this contemplation of the 
divine essence lies the soul's peculiar and true glory. 

But even at this point our captious adversary does not call it quits 
and picks up again a useless argument which we had ignored, tired out 
by so many verses cited seemingly without any good reason, except to 
show that man's life is transitory and his days fleeting. He says that 
because they knew there is no afterlife the holy men of the Bible prayed 
God to have compassion and pity on them in this life, to save them from 
death and to lengthen their days. He is so infatuated with this nonsen¬ 
sical argument, that he sooner adds heresy to heresy than renounce 
it. So he goes on to posit that if the soul which has been separated from 
the body praises God, then the plea based on the brevity of human life, 
used so often in appealing for God's compassion, would be invalid. 

It really is no great matter to refute this line of reasoning, which 
is just as absurd as so many others he exerts himself to concoct. When 
David, begging God not to cut him off in the midst of his days, says, 
for example: 

[...] Lord [...] lighten my eyes lest I sleep the sleep of death [Ps. 13, 4] 

is it conceivable that what he so earnestly besought was merely the 
enjoyment of a few additional years on earth? Is it not more reasonable 
to suppose — and this indeed is the truth — that it was to merit and 
attain, through observance of the Law and its precepts as well as 
through contrition and repentance, the bliss of the world-to-come? Now 
if this were not so, if David indeed only pleaded for his life in order 
to enjoy this world a little longer, why then did Mose, 'Eliyahu and Yona 
beseech God to grant them death? Did these three have a different faith 
and adhere to a different doctrine from David's? No! All of them aspired 



474 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


to and languished for the same goal of spiritual riches: David, 
supplicating for an extension of life in which to earn more merit; the 
other holy men, impatiently supplicating for death so as to enjoy them 
immediately. The verse: 

[...] a spirit which passeth and returneth not [Ps. 78, 39] 

clearly gives us to understand that through its own efforts and initiative 
it will not return, but why should it not return by God's command? 
Just because its body has been done away with, as this ignoramus 
claims? This is a great falsehood, exposed and demonstrated by the very 
word "passeth” which he alleges in favour of his thesis. For if it passes, 
then it certainly has a different essence and different qualities from 
the body, which remains behind motionless and without attributes. The 
spirit, on the other hand, separates itself to such an extent that it stirs, 
moves and goes, using properties of its own: a characteristic which can 
only be understood to belong to something which has actual existence. 

The "proof” derived from the story of 'Abraham, who, in speaking 
with God, admits that he is but dust and ashes, is peculiar to this subtle 
commentator. Ashes were no ingredient of 'Adam, nor did he ever turn 
into them. For just as God said to 'Adam that he was dust and would 
return to dust, so God would also have mentioned ashes, had ashes been 
a constituent part of 'Adam. But 'Abraham wanted to show his extreme 
humility and submission as is befitting in the presence of the divine 
majesty. So he employed these words, expressive more than any others 
of human wretchedness and fragility. For the human body, once aban¬ 
doned by the soul, is left just as useless and unprofitable as dust mixed 
with ashes. 

As to Selomo [Eccl. 3, 20-21], besides what we have already said 
about these verses 2 , it is clear that they refer exclusively to the body, 
for they tell us that everything came from the dust and will return to 
the dust and the Preacher well knew that the soul of man never was 
nor will be dust. When he asks — and seemingly leaves the answer 
doubtful — "who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and 
the spirit of the jument goes downward?”, it is not because he does not 
know the answer, for elsewhere he himself says that the spirit will 
return to God who gave it. The purpose of the question is rather to 


2 In chapter 13 da Silva claimed that the materialistic verses in Ecclesiastes (e.g., 
3, 20) do not represent the opinion of the author (king Solomon) but that of an "epicurean” 
whom the Preacher intends to refute. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


475 


provide the Epicurean 3 with an opportunity to condemn himself and 
the pious person with a chance to reaffirm his piety and his commit¬ 
ment to the observance of God's commandments and His Law. All this 
is epitomized at the end of the book where we are enjoined to fear God 
and keep His precepts. 

Assuredly the appropriate rewards for observing the Law and its 
commandments are only those to be enjoyed in the hereafter, and no 
others. Granted, the Law does promise — because of their visible and 
palpable nature — temporal rewards to those who adhere to it, yet these 
are no real rewards. Witness the fact that those who do not fear God 
or keep the Law also possess and enjoy them — in some cases in a 
greater measure than God-fearing Israelites. 'Abraham said to 
'Abimelek: 


[...] because I thought: "surely the fear of God is not in this place” [...] 
[Gn. 20, 11] 

and yet neither 'Abimelek nor his compatriots suffered any lack of 
temporal goods; on the contrary, they enjoyed a great abundance of 
them. The Egyptians and other depraved idolaters and sorcerers 
enjoyed unlimited riches. 4 It would be superfluous to adduce more 
examples of such a well-known reality which can be ascertained at all 
periods, in the past and in the present. That is why Selomo posits the 
ultimate purpose of man's existence to be "fear God and keep His Law.” 
He was well aware of a better and greater reward for such observance 
than temporal riches, which are also imparted to those who have neither 
Law nor any fear of God. 


3 Cf. supra, chapter 13, note 2. 

4 Da Silva either considers long-term prosperity the only measure or he chooses 
to ignore the visitation brought upon Abimelech and his household (Gn. 20, 18) and that 
of the 10 plagues. 



476 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Chapter 16 

Which Contains the Adversary’s Curious List of Arguments, 
the First of his Counter-Arguments as well as its Refutation 


Our opponent continues: 


Chapter 24 1 

Containing the Arguments Adduced by Those who Say that the 
Human Soul is Immortal and that the Dead will be Revived, and the 
Replies that are Made to Them. 

And he goes on: 

Those who proclaim the immortality of the soul and resurrection are 
like people who want to climb a smooth wall without a ladder. Since 
there is nothing to grasp, every time they stick out a hand or think they 
have a foothold, they slip and fall. That this is the case will become 
evident when we consider their arguments, which now follow: 

1. Human beings were created in God’s image. God is immortal. 
Therefore, they must also be immortal, or they would not be created 
in God’s image. 

2. The creation of man was not similar to that of other animals, 
for "God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" [Gn. 2, 7]. 
Therefore this breath is immortal. 

3. God said to man: "On the day that thou eatest of the tree thou 
shah die" [cf. Gn. 2, 17]. Had 'Adam not eaten, he would not have died. 
Therefore he was created immortal. 

4. Mose said to God: "If Thou wilt not forgive their sin, blot me 
out from Thy book which Thou hast written" [cf. Ex. 32, 32]. In that 
book are inscribed those who are granted eternal life and it is those 
who live in the "land of the living." 

5. Semu'el came back to speak to Sa'ul [ISm. 28, 7-20]. Therefore 
the dead are aware and speak. 

6. 'Eliyahu was carried off to heaven and is alive. *Elisa c revived 
a corpse. 

7. In the Psalms we read that the wicked will be destroyed from 
the face of the earth and the righteous will flourish. Therefore there 
must be another life in store for us, because in the present one the 


Le., Chapter 2 in da Costa's extant book. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


477 


wicked flourish and the righteous suffer; thus, the wicked are not 
punished nor are the just rewarded. 

8. It is written: "For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to the grave; 
Thou wilt not suffer Thy pious to see the pit" [Ps. 16, 10]. Similarly: 
"How great is Thy goodness which Thou hast in store for those that 
fear Thee [...]" [Ps. 31, 20]. 

9. It is written: "Thy dead shall live [...]" and right after: "[...] the 
earth shall cast out the departed” [Is. 26, 19]. Similarly: "[...] Behold, 
I open your graves and I will cause you to come up out of your graves, 
O My people [...]" [Ezek. 37, 12]. Similarly: "And I know that my 
Redeemer liveth and last I shall stand on the dust. And after they crush 
this skin of mine, from my flesh shall I behold God. Whom I shall myself 
behold and my eyes shall see and not a stranger; my reins grow weak 
within my bosom" [Job 19, 25-27]. Daniel also prophesied the resur¬ 
rection of the dead. 

He goes on to say: 

To the first argument, viz. that man could not be described as created 
in God's image unless he were immortal, we reply that one has to be 
mad to imagine man to be made in God's image in every respect. Thus, 
while God is omnipotent, the creature made in His image obviously 
is not. Otherwise, if we were to consider man to be an image of God 
instead of a creature in His image, man would, of necessity, be God! 
But how can anything created be completely like the Creator Himself? 
To be simultaneously God and created is impossible. The greatest 
mystery is that even He, with all His power, could not make another 
His equal. Man is an image and likeness of God in so far as he is a 
shadow of His wisdom, but not Wisdom incarnate. He has dominion 
over other beings and in this respect too he may be likened unto God, 
but his dominion is not identical with God's. Neither is he an image 
of God as regards immortality, for that is a divine, not a human 
attribute: "Are Thy days perchance as the days of humans; Thy years 
as the days of a man" [Job 10, 5]? Iyob could not have said this if the 
spirit of man were immortal [...]. 

The Law's testimony that God created man in His image and 
likeness, should have sufficed to render this work of ours superfluous 
for that testimony precludes all doubt concerning the immortality of 
the soul. If the Epicureans, with whom this evil belief in the mortality 
of the soul originated, had known the Law and believed in it, it would 
never have crossed their minds to deny immortality, for they were not 
so lacking in discrimination and in the rudiments of philosophy as to 
deny the force of conclusive arguments such as the following: God made 
man in His image and likeness, not in respect to the body (for in God 
there is neither a body nor the likeness of a body), but in respect to 
the soul. Consequently, it is the soul of man which is like unto God. 



478 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Let us now carry this a step further: if the human soul is like unto 
God, it must have something of the divine essence. Not all of it; for then 
the soul would not be "like unto God”, but would be God. Now then, 
God is an omniscient, immortal, separate substance. Therefore the soul 
will possess just enough of these attributes to make it like unto God, 
but with the following differences: in God, being the Creator, everything 
is infinite; in the soul, being a creature, everything is limited; in God, 
everything is self-existent; in the soul everything is by God's creation. 
This being the truth and the Law, it is impossible to imagine that a man 
who opposes them with the above-cited arguments is in his right mind. 

Nor is there any validity to the possible objection on his part, 
namely, that, in the attribute of immortality, we are equalizing the soul 
with God: if the soul is eternal, wherein lies God's superiority? We 
would reply that the great superiority consists in God's immortality 
being intrinsic, whereas the soul's was given it by God. 2 And, since He 
gave it, it had a beginning and thus there still remains between God 
and the soul an infinite distance, as between that which had a begin¬ 
ning and that which had none. That is why we say that God lives in eter¬ 
nity, because He had no beginning and will never end, but the souls 
and the angels live in an aeon, because they had a beginning but will 
not end. Here below everything lives in time, because all has a begin¬ 
ning and an end. This argumentation makes it quite clear that the soul 
is immortal because it is made in the likeness of God. Otherwise, if it 
had a beginning and an end (a senseless opinion), wherein would the 
likeness consist? 

See how the antagonist's silly arguments confound him. Unable to 
get around the statement in the Law that man is similar to God, he 
resorts to saying that man "is almost similar, but his dominion is not 
like God's,” all the while pretending or imagining that his opponents 
claim that man is God. This opinion which he attributes to us is as fictive 
as the following splendid dialectical deduction which he might just as 
well attribute to us: the soul is like unto God, therefore, the soul is God. 
Then he might go on to make us say: lime is similar to snow, therefore 


2 That the soul is not immortal by its own nature (as is God), but, rather, mortal 
by nature and dependent upon God for its immortality, is a point stressed by many Fathers 
of the Church. Cf. H.A. Wolfson, "Immortality and Resurrection in the Philosophy of the 
Church Fathers,” Religious Philosophy, Cambridge (Mass.), 1961, 69-103: 71-76. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


479 


the crystal, or the diamond, is a sun. The verses he cites wherein Iyob 
says that the days and the years of man are limited are quite irrelevant 
as regards the soul, for at the end of those days man's soul reattaches 
itself to God Who created it and with Whom it has an affinity. 3 


Chapter 17 

The Human Soul Has its Own Name 
Which Distinguishes it from That of Brutes 


Our adversary goes on to say: 

Argument 2: "The creation of man was not similar to that of brutes, 
for 'God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life’ [Gn. 2, 7]. Therefore 
this breath is immortal.” 

We reply that the argument is unconvincing and illogical, because 
it does not follow that the spirit which gave life to ’Adam’s soulless 
body was an immortal one. Rather, the context shows that beasts and 
man have the same spirit, because at creation God said: "Let the earth 
bring forth a living soul [...]” [Gn. 1, 24] and at the time of man’s crea¬ 
tion, having already breathed into him the vital spirit, God said: "[...] 
and man became a living soul [...]” [Gn. 2, 7]. Thus we see that the same 
word is used in both places and, as Selomo says: "[...] yea, they have 
all one kind of spirit [...]” [Eccl. 3, 19]. It was quite appropriate for God 
not to have shaped man out of clay together with the brute beasts, as 
He might have done, so that rational man, partaker of Divine wisdom, 
who lords it over them should not be part of their herd. Thus shall he 
learn from the manner of his creation, to be different from them in 
his life-style. Further differences — and all for pedagogical purposes — 
may be found between the creation of man and that of beasts. God 
created only one of his kind, rather than many, and gave him a wife 
whom he extracted from him. All these things teach him manners but 
have nothing to do with being mortal or immortal. If 'Adam had been 
alive when God breathed the "spirit of life” into him, we might have 
concluded that that spirit was separate and distinct from the animal 
spirit which already animated him. However, 'Adam did not stir before 
the vital spirit entered him. Therefore the vital spirit which entered 


3 Cf. at the close of (1624).II.13 where da Costa catches da Silva's inconsistency. 



480 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


'Adam was the animal soul, and that identical animal soul was a rational 
soul. It all overlaps to such a degree that as soon as the animal soul 
enters man, his faculties, known as the rational soul, take hold: "I will 
praise the Lord during my life; I will sing unto my God while I have 
any being” [Ps. 146, 2] 'for after I cease existing, I shall not be able to 
sing*. "His spirit will depart, he will return to his earth; on that day 
his thoughts perish” [Ps. 146, 4]. On the day of a man's death, all his 
fair words will end, he will no longer ratiocinate. Ecclesiastes: 
"Whatever [thy hand] findeth to do, that do [with] thy might; for there 
is no work, nor reasoning, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the nether 
world whither thou goest” [Eccl. 9, 10]. On the day when man dies, 
everything ends with him. Mortal and finite was the spirit which God 
gave him: not immortal and infinite; therefore he dies; whereas if it 
were otherwise he would not die. Iyob: "If He were to set his heart 
upon him, He would gather unto Himself his spirit and his breath. All 
flesh would die together and man would return unto dust” [Job 34, 
14-15]. Likewise of other animals: "[...] Thou wilt gather up their 
spirit, they will expire and to their dust they will return” [Ps. 104, 29]. 
When God gathers up and takes away the spirit, then man, a rational 
animal, just like any non-rational animal, is extinguished and comes 
to an end. In order to discredit this truth, some say that one might then 
just as well be a dog as a man. These people deserve to be painfully 
stripped of the being which God gave them, since they have so little 
self-knowledge and self-respect, that they transform themselves from 
the dog's masters into his equals, just because God did not grant them 
eternal life — as if it were owing to them. A certain poet put it better 
in a romance : "Mortal did my mother bring me forth / So that I could 
have died at once / That which Heaven gave thee as a favour / Do not 
claim it as thy right.”. 

Although our misguided and impudent adversary knows no Hebrew 
and has obstinately refused to learn it, nevertheless the original Hebrew 
text of Scripture will have to be considered at this point and explained 
clearly enough for him to understand. Holy writ, discussing the forma¬ 
tion of man, says: 

And God breathed into his nostrils the soul of life [cf. Gn. 2, 7] 

using the word nesama to express "soul.” And nesama refers always 
to the human soul and not to that of the brute, which is called nefes. 
Accordingly, Yesa c yahu says: 

[...] and souls I made [Is. 57, 16] 

using the word nesamot , which is the plural of nesama. Similarly: 

Every soul (nesama) praises the Lord [...] [Ps. 150, 6] 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


481 


and 


The soul (nesama) of man is a candle of God [...] [Pr. 20, 27]. 

God inspired nesama into the human being, as it says [in Genesis 
2, 7]: nismat 1 hayyim, "soul of lives,” — which incidentally also shows 
that it is for more than one life. Now it is true that the human soul is 
here and there designated nefes , but for this there is a special reason, 
which will be set out anon. This linguistic nicety — the distinction 
between nefes and nesama — shows that those unskilled in the Hebrew 
tongue who would treat of these matters grope in darkness like blind 
people who stumble and fall flat on their faces every few moments. This 
describes a certain ignoramus who, priding himself on his subtlety, will 
no doubt retort: 

'Where is the consistency of your distinction? The human soul 
which ought to be called exclusively nesama , is in the very same place 
also called nefes which, according to you, denotes the soul of brutes. 
For Scripture says: 

[and God breathed into his nostrils nismat hayyim (soul of lives)] and 
the man was lenefes haya (for living soul) [Gn. 2, 7] 

so, they are one and the same, implying that the two terms, nefes and 
nesama are interchangeable. For when God commanded the earth to 
bring forth animals, the expression employed is nefes haya (living soul), 
the same phrase used for humans in the last clause of Genesis 2, 7.’ 2 

Listen attentively and learn. The difference between the corrup¬ 
tible human body and the nesama, or immortal and divine soul, was 
so great, that it seemed inconceivable for a union to exist between such 
opposites. Hence, the Platonists, for example, denied it, as we saw above. 
Lest we too should be incredulous of the reality of such a union, it was 
necessary for Sacred Writ to show it forth, by saying, as it did, that 
God inspired in human beings a nesama. If not for the Bible telling us 
this, we would suppose it to be repugnant to an immortal nesama 
to unite with the body and in so alien an environment to activate 


1 nismat is the construct form of nesama. 

2 Cf. also Gn. 9, 10 where nefes ha-haya designates animals. As we have seen, da 
Silva had already taken cognizance of the threat to his system posed by the Bible's use 
of nefes when referring to the human soul. Yet he first has to put this challenge at a remove 
from himself, apparently out of a reluctance to identify with it. Hence this literary device 
of placing the objection into the mouth of da Costa. 



482 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


un-bodylike functions such as perception and reasoning. To dispel any 
lingering doubts Scripture adds: "and was for living soul.” It does not 
say: "was living soul” or "was nefes haya ” (which is the soul of brutes), 
but rather "was for soul” or "instead of soul,” as if to say: 'even though 
the nesama is of such refinement that its proper function is to perceive, 
it is nevertheless not above carrying out in the human body the func¬ 
tion which the nefes performs in the bodies of brutes, such as to 
animate, to feel, to move, etc.’ 3 

As Iyob said: 

[...] and the breath of the Almighty gives me life [Job 33, 4] 

where the word "breath” translates nesama. With this true explana¬ 
tion all the staggering and tottering of this confused blind man (who 
did in a moment of lucidity, as it were, admit that the human soul 
partakes of divine wisdom) should come to an end. To claim after this 
that there is no distinction between it and the soul of brutes would be 
worse than blindness. But supposing that he still does not budge from 
his position and that nothing said until now suffices to convince him, 
why then, in his opinion, were we granted understanding, free will, 
precepts, the Law, the Holy Land, the sacrificial cult, the Holy 
Temple? 4 Surely all these things were meant for us to merit and 
attain spiritual goods through them. For as to the temporal ones: power, 
dominion and monetary wealth, the gentiles possess and enjoy them 
to a greater degree than we. The one thing they lack is the Law for the 
honour and reward of which Israelites reject their offer of dignities, 
advantages and pleasures contingent upon its renouncement. They live 
under restrictions, when they could be enjoying life to the hilt; they 
suffer poverty, when they could be rich enough to remedy the social 
ills of the polity; they spend their existence in fear and in exile, when 
they could be spending it confident and in tranquillity. 


3 Da Silva seems to have forgotten that 'Adam (the human) — not nesama — is the 
subject of the last clause of Gn. 2, 7, the text which he is here purporting to elucidate. 

4 Da Silva's argument presupposes that the gifts enumerated here could not be 
meaningfully bestowed on human beings if their souls were mortal. As his argument 
unfolds, the attraction this fallacy held for him becomes apparent. As we see elsewhere 
in this treatise, to da Silva it is axiomatic that religion is performed as a means to securing 
recompense; the only question for him is the nature of that recompense. Thus he is able 
to pursue his argument the way he does. The possibility that these gifts were granted 
as ends unto themselves seems not to merit his consideration. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


483 


And you, blind opponent, think you are entitled to say that in your 
case also it is because of the Law that you are suffering exile, loneliness, 
insults, hatred and adversity, haunted by ghosts which pursue you by 
day and by night and which will finally make you go out of your mind. 
Your account is a figment of your imagination. You would be better 
off leading a high life, seeing that you expect nothing after death. You 
are, however, mistaken and you will discover this to your great regret 
when your soul appears before God's tribunal to receive its just deserts. 
You will end up with two hells. I, who would like nothing better than 
to deliver you from both, admonish you to seek repentance, to snatch 
yourself out of the road to perdition, to beg forgiveness from your 
Creator for your repeated rebelliousness and from your fellow-men for 
having repeatedly offended and scandalized them. The verses which you 
adduce out of context, as if it were you exclaiming them: 

I will praise the Lord during my life, I will sing unto my God while 
I have any being [Ps. 146, 2] 

those very verses you should apply contritely to a good purpose. Turn 
away from your sins while you are still alive and devote yourself to 
the true study of the Law, in the fear of God, under the guidance of 
your betters. As it is written: 

[...] ask thy father and he will recount it to thee, thy elders and they 
will tell thee [Dt. 32, 7]. 

Do not imagine that you can be the father and the elder! First 
learn Hebrew and unlearn all those errors into which you have sunk 
solely because of arrogance and envy. How dare you say that man is 
master of a dog and that a dog is afraid of man; you would be more 
afraid of a lion and a tiger than a dog is afraid of a man! And further, 
how dare you bring romances into matters so serious and of such 
import? Do you not think you had gone far enough transcribing all 
those verses from Selomo and Iyob which prove nothing more than that 
human beings die, a fact for which no proof is needed? Nor does it 
contradict in any way the truth which you should believe and uphold: 
God has instilled a soul into you for which you will be held accoun¬ 
table despite yourself, however bitter a pill that will be for you to 
swallow. As Selomo says: 

For every work shall God bring into judgement, on every secret thing, 
whether it be good or whether it be evil [Eccl. 12, 14]. 



484 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


The antagonist continues: 

Argument 3: "'[...] for on the day that thou eatest of the tree thou shah 
surely die’ [cf. Gn. 2, 17]. Had 'Adam not eaten, he would not have died. 
Therefore he was created immortal.” We claim that the argument is 
invalid. The verse does not mean that were 'Adam to refrain from eating, 
he would never have to die; it rather means that if 'Adam would not 
eat, he would be spared that kind of death with which God was 
threatening him, but would die a natural death when his time came; 
in other words, he would not die in advance of his time due to his having 
infringed the precept. Now when the Law says: 'He who commits such 
and such an action will surely die,’ does it mean that if he does not 
commit that action he will not have to die? To be sure he has to die, 
but he will not have to suffer the death which is the penalty for this 
transgression. Yehezqel says: "[...] if the sinner turns from his way, 
as I live, saith the Lord [...] he shall not die” [cf. Ezek. 33; 11, 15]. 
He will not die by the death with which he was threatened, nor shall 
I inflict death upon him before he has completed his life-span, nor will 
I inflict upon him the evil death deserved by sinners.’ Thus, had 'Adam 
not sinned, God would not have judged him. But judge him he did, for 
even though He did not punish 'Adam straight away with the death 
penalty and prolonged his life out of considerations of mercy, certain 
penalties were imposed upon him. But even were we to concede that 
'Adam had originally been granted immortality (an hypothesis not 
confirmed by the frailty of his constitution, which needed replenish¬ 
ment by food and drink) on condition that he obey the commandment 
laid upon him; at the moment when he transgressed it, he would have 
lost that immortality and, consequently, died. It must also be 
remembered that even if conditional immortality had originally been 
granted 'Adam, it would, of course, have been physical immortality. 
But he sinned and died and any immortality he might have had was 
gone. The truth of the matter is, however, that he was created mortal 
and corruptible. 

We have provided sufficient response to this argument in chapter 
12, where we pointed out that if man had not eaten of the forbidden 
fruit he would not have died. And even had he died nevertheless, this 
would in no way have affected the nature of his soul, which in any case 
is clearly shown to be immortal. All his arguments for the mortality 
and the corruptibility of the human soul are invalid and his conclusions 
null and void because the death of a human being does not entail the 
annihilation of the soul, nor even of the body, but the end of the union 
which existed between them, followed by the return of each to its 
original place, as we have set out and demonstrated. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


485 


Chapter 18 

Explaining Some Verses Misunderstood by the Adversary 


Our opponent further goes on to say: 

Argument 4: "Mose said to God: *[...] blot me out, I pray Thee, from 
Thy book which Thou hast written’ [Ex. 32, 32]. In this book are 
inscribed those who are given eternal life, and it is these who live in 
the 'land of the living*.” We claim that this all refers to our present 
life and not to some other one, which does not exist. Thus, Mose asked 
God to blot him out of His book in which He inscribes the righteous 
whom He wishes to reward in this life, by assuring them that they will 
complete their days in peace and happiness. (We do not believe that 
God keeps some kind of an agenda, but consider the expression an 
anthropomorphism, to convey the idea that God keeps an account with 
the world in the matter of reward and punishment.) From this book, 
then, Mose requested God to blot him out, as if to say: "put me to death, 
cut me off before I complete my span. If I do not secure the pardon 
of this people, I do not wish to live.” He spoke in the same manner 
another time: "And if Thou wilt thus deal with me, then slay me out 
of hand if I have found favour in Thine eyes, that I may not see my 
wretchedness” [Nm. 11, 15]. 'Once before I begged you, 0 Lord, to slay 
me, while I earnestly sought the weal of this people, because I did not 
wish to live to see evil come upon it. Now I beseech you anew, earnestly 
seeking my own welfare, because if I have to continually face such trials, 
life has no attraction for me.’ Ribqa spoke to Yishaq in the same vein, 
saying that she was weary to death and that her life was not worth 
living if Ya c aqob married one of the local women [cf. Gn. 27, 46]. Mose, 
in asking God to blot him out of the book, certainly did not mean a 
book in which were inscribed those destined for an eternal and perfectly 
happy life (if such exists), for, had he meant that, he would be asking 
to be inscribed, instead, among the enemies of God who are condemned 
to eternal suffering: an insane and outrageous petition. "Land of the 
living” is the name of this world in which we exist here and now; "land 
of lives,” means a land in which there are many lives, because many 
live in it, and thus it is not the land of a single life. "Land of the dead” 
and "land of perdition” are names of the grave, as also "pit”, "silence”, 
"land of darkness and the shadow of death, where light does not enter”, 
as Iyob depicts it. The "land of lives” is often mentioned in Yehezqel 
[Ezek. 32, 23-32], and in many places in Psalms: "I will walk before the 
face of the Lord in the land of lives” [Ps. 116, 9]. 'The Lord delivered 
my soul from death and from the hands of those who tried to take it 
from me. Therefore I shall live and go before God in the land of lives. 
Consequently, I shall show my gratitude for the favours which I 



486 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


recognize as having come from His hand and shall offer a sacrifice in 
thanks for my well-being’: ‘The cup of salvation will I lift up, and in 
the name of the Lord will I make an invocation. I will pay my vows 
to the Lord [...]. Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his pious 
ones” [Ps. 116, 13-15]. The Lord does not esteem His righteous ones 
so little as to be indifferent to their death. Therefore He does not readily 
deliver them into the hands of their enemies. And I, for this reason, 
by way of thanksgiving: "[...] will pay my vows unto the Lord, yea, in 
the presence of all His people’” [Ps. 116, 14]. Thus has been 
demonstrated who are those that are inscribed in God's book, and what 
is the “land of lives.”. 

This "Argument 4” he attributes to us is non-existent: no one claims 
that Mose besought God to blot him out of a book in which are inscribed 
those to whom eternal life is granted. 1 A plausible explanation of the 
words in Exodus 32, 32 is that Mose asked God to blot him out of the 
Law, which was indeed the book written by God. For when Mose says: 

Yet now if Thou wilt forgive their sin; if not, blot me out, I pray Thee, 
from Thy book which Thou hast written [Ex. 32, 32] 

it could mean: 'Lord, You did command me to take the children of Israel 
out of Egypt and, however much I protested my unworthiness. You 
insisted that I become the instrument for the wonders which You 
wrought at that time. My name is associated with all of them as You 
have recorded them in Your book of the Law. Now if it is going to 
culminate in such a sad and miserable way, with Your people coming 
to grief here in the desert without seeing the Holy Land, in that case 
please blot me out of Your book, for it is not meet that I be mentioned 
in connection with an enterprise which, having started out so grandly 
and made so much progress, ended in ignominy.’ 

However, seeing that Mose in another context expressly asked 
for death: 


And if Thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray Thee, out of hand, if 
I have found favour in Thy sight and I shall not see my own wret¬ 
chedness [Nm. 11, 15] 


i One wonders why da Silva ignores the talmudic explanation of this verse 
(B.T. Rosh Hashana 16b): "R. Kruspedai said in the name of R. Johanan: Three books 
are opened [in heaven] on New Year: one for the thoroughly wicked, one for the thoroughly 
righteous and one for the intermediate’ [...] What text tells us this? [...] R. Nahman 
b. Isaac derives it from here: ‘And if not, blot me out, I pray Thee, from Thy book which 
Thou hast written’: ‘blot me out, I pray Thee’ — this is the book of the wicked; ‘from 
Thy book’: — this is the book of the righteous; 'which Thou hast written’: this is the book 
of the intermediate [...].” 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


487 


we may conclude that in the earlier passage he was also asking for 
death. In any case, from both verses it clearly appears that Mose 
believed in and hoped for an afterlife. In expectancy of that afterlife 
he was giving up his present one, hoping the exchange would be in accor¬ 
dance with the will of God. Were it otherwise, it would have been absurd 
for him to ask God, as a favour, for a death which he could have inflicted 
on himself. But neither he nor any of the other biblical worthies grown 
weary of life would take the initiative of putting an end to it, for they 
did not want to prejudice their chances of earning the ensuing bliss. 
Forsooth, they did desire death, but only if it were to come to them 
through the will of their Creator Who sends death and gives life, as it 
is written: 


[...] I kill and I make alive [...] [Dt. 32, 39]. 

As for the verses in which "land of lives" refers to this world, they 
are of little consequence, for it is not on this phrase that our position 
depends. Sometimes that expression is applied to the Holy Land, as it 
is by Yehezqel, who, after describing the destruction of other lands, 
concludes with a reference to the Holy Land in the following words: 

[...] and He shall set up His ornament in the land of lives [cf. Ezek. 26, 20]. 

To our opponent's theory — that this world is called "land of lives" 
because so many people live in it — we object that according to this 
reasoning it would be more appropriate to call it the "land of deaths," 
because those who die and died in it are far more numerous. 2 So all 
the verses he cites apropos of the "land of lives" are of no interest and 
irrelevant to the case at hand. 

One need but consider his explanation of the verse: 

Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His pious ones 

[Ps. 116, 15] 

to see that it came out of the head of one who lacked all grounding. 
He interprets the word "precious" to denote "dear," "costly" or 
"causing displeasure," and to mean that God does not readily deliver 
His pious ones into the hands of their enemies, because this is very 


2 Presumably da Silva refers to the sum total of the dead, who from a certain 
point in time onwards always outnumber any living generation. 



488 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


costly or grievous to Him, as if God were not able to free them from 
their enemies! But this verse is very supportive of the truth of our posi¬ 
tion, because the first word of the verse, yaqar in Hebrew, always 
signifies "precious” in the sense of "pleasant,” "beautiful,” as: 

[...] with all precious and pleasant riches [Pr. 24, 4] 


and: 


The precious sons of Zion [...] [Lam. 4, 2] 

where the word "precious” (yaqar) denotes "pleasant,” "held in high 
esteem.” That is what the Psalmist has in mind when he says that the 
death of His pious ones is "precious” to the Lord, because it is plea¬ 
sant for Him to receive them in His glorious abode and to extend to 
them the full reward for their works. This indeed is the case, as we 
read in Iyob: 

If He set His heart upon man, He would gather to Himself his spirit 
and his breath [Job 34, 14] 

where the Hebrew word here translated "breath” is nesama, i.e., the 
soul, insufflated by God into the human being, subsequently gathered 
up to Himself again. 


Chapter 19 

The Adversary Badly Misinterprets and Unjustifiably Denies 
the Account of Semu'el’s Soul Coming Back to Converse with Sa’ul 


Our adversary goes on to say: 

Argument 5: "Semu'el came back to speak with Sa'ul [ISm. 28, 7-20]. 
Therefore the dead are aware and speak.” We reply that Semu'el did 
not come back to speak to Sa'ul, neither do the dead have any 
awareness, nor do they speak. That which is written in respect of this 
coming or speaking in the First Book of Semu'el is in complete 
contradiction with the teaching of the Law and those passages cited 
earlier which show that the dead have neither awareness nor the 
knowledge that belonged to their former selves. Now, since this passage 
of Scripture gainsays the true doctrine of the Law, it is of necessity 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


489 


apocryphal, like other passages lorged and canonized by the Pharisees, 
but rejected by the Sadducees. As for us, we hold the Law to be our 
guide and principal foundation and by its light do we judge and separate 
the false from the true. For example, the Law commands us [Dt. 13, 
2-6] not to believe the prophet or dreamer who by means of false 
miracles or the use of deceptive words wishes to mislead us into 
worshipping strange gods hitherto unknown to us; though it did not 
teach us how to identify their signs and portents, yet the Law commands 
us, who would be its faithful adherents, to despise them. However, for 
recognizing the false prophet who claims to speak in God's name, it 
does provide a test [Dt. 18, 20-22]. If what he foretells does not come 
to pass, he is false. Thus forewarned, by taking refuge in the truth of 
the Law we can guard ourselves against malicious people who 
incessantly invent and rake up mischief. And since it is an innovation 
to say that the dead speak and arise at the bidding of him who calls 
them up, a phenomenon foreign to the Law, which, indeed, condemned 
calling up the dead as pagan and vain, we, who firmly believe in the 
teaching and truth of the Law, must eliminate and reject that scrip¬ 
tural text, or, rather, fable, which says that Semu'el came to talk to 
Sa'ul. Certainly anyone who takes a look at the story will immediately 
be struck by its unreasonableness, for one would like to know who lent 
Semu'el that mantle to wrap himself in, or who gave him a body and 
that white beard, which a few days before had been put under the 
ground. For when his spirit departed this world to go to its alleged 
destination, it supposedly went bare. Moreover, Semu'el said that Sa'ul 
would be with him the next day and thus Sa'ul, from whom God had 
turned away and become an enemy (as it says), would be assigned the 
same good place in the hereafter as Semu'el, His favourite. It is of 
course possible, if such deceptions and trickery to fool people and 
conjure up imaginary bodies do exist (I myself know nothing of such 
trickery), that this malevolent woman put one over on Sa'ul. However, 
to think that Semu'el's soul, newly provided with a body and clothing, 
came to talk to him, is not merely absurd: it is an erroneous, pagan 
and vain opinion. As is written in Yesa c yahu: "[...] on behalf of the 
living (inquire) of the dead?” [Is. 8, 19] as if it said: "The living know 
more, are worth more, are better off than the dead; what can a dead 
person do for the living? so why in the world inquire of the dead on 
behalf of the living?” And as Selomo says: "[...] for a living dog fareth 
better than a dead lion. For the living know that they have to die, and 
the dead know nothing, and have reward no more, yea, their memory 
is consigned to oblivion. Their love too, also their hatred, also their 
envy, have already perished; and they will never more have a portion 
in all that is done under the sun” [Eccl. 9, 4-6]. The dead person is 
finished, and no longer takes account of what goes on in the world. 
So little account, as Iyob says, that the fate of his children is unknown 
to him: "His children will acquire power, but he will not know of it; 
and they will become debased, but he will not care about them” [Job 
14, 21]. Now if that is the fate of the dead man, if his is the sleep from 
which there is no awakening, then shame on the myth-makers who 
peddle the dead, trying to persuade us that they appear again and act 
as advisors to the living. 



490 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


It is certain that the ancient inhabitants of the Holy Land, among 
other abominations, practiced necromancy. Yet we cannot affirm that 
communication between the living and the dead never actually took 
place or that the replies given by the dead to those who interrogated 
them were but lies and fraud. Nor can we be sure that God prohibited 
this practice because of its being delusion and fantasy, for He forbad 
many others which were real enough, such as putting children through 
fire and offering them to Molek. One could be attributing to God a false 
motive were one to insist that the Law prohibited necromancy because 
it is illusory and deception, since the Law forbad many other things 
which have nothing vain or make-believe about them. When Sa’ul 
commanded [ISm. 28, 3] to remove the mediums and the wizards out 
of the land in his drive to suppress necromancy, he was obeying the 
Law. But the very fact that he seeks to inquire of Semu’el — at all costs, 
even breaking the Law — are a sure indication that he placed a high 
value on the dead man’s reply, believing it to be authentic. Anyone who 
denies this, misinterprets the passage from beginning to end. In the 
same way, our adversary simply dismisses anything that runs counter 
to those opinions founded on thin air to which he obstinately clings. 
For example, here he accuses the Pharisees of having falsified Scrip¬ 
ture, but what ulterior motive might have been theirs he fails to explain. 
To contradict the Sadducees? But further on he admits that he knows 
nothing about them, nor does he know which books they considered 
canonical and which they rejected. Now to say that we, by accepting 
the truth of the encounter of dead Semu’el and Sa’ul, have thereby aban¬ 
doned the true guide and the straight path pointed out to us by the Law 
which also proscribes the dreamer and the false prophet, is absurd, 
because to condemn a practice is not at all the same as to deny its 
existence. Rather is it the case that whoever prohibits and proscribes 
a given practice, thereby admits its reality. Precisely because dreamers 
and false prophets do exist, the Law forbids us to believe them. Because 
the pagans put their children through fire and sacrificed them to an 
idol called Molek, the Law exhorts Yisra’el to refrain from such an 
abominable practice. Similarly, it was the reality of necromancy that 
prompted the Law [Dt. 18, 11] to prohibit it. 1 


l As da Costa points out in his chapter 15, da Silva illogically equates the act of 
sacrificing, with what people believed to result from the necromancers' manipulations, 
and treats them equally as objective reality. Performing a ritual is, of course, a physical 
act, whether it be sacrificing or conjuring. But what the devotees believe to result from 
the action, is quite another matter. Cf. Ibn Ezra on Lv. 19, 31. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


491 


Now if one is to cast doubt on the authenticity of the passage 
concerning the appearance of dead Samu'el to Sa'ul by asking who 
provided Semu'el's pure and bare spirit with that cape and that 
venerable beard, then one might just as well ask how did the angels 
— so often mentioned in the Law, such as those who appeared in the 
guise of travellers, captains and soldiers to 'Abraham, Yehosua c , 
David, etc. — obtain the clothing, insignia, arms, etc. with which they 
were adorned. 

The argument that if Sa'ul, who was a sinner, were to be assigned 
just as good a place in the hereafter as Semu'el, who was a saint, then 
it follows that there is no distinction made there between the righteous 
and the wicked, is silly. Semu'el is not discussing the punishments or 
the glory of the world-to-come when he says: 

[...] and tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me [...] [ISm. 28, 19] 

but what he means is 'tomorrow you will be numbered among the dead 
and in their company.’ But even were we to interpret it in that other 
way, who is to say that Sa'ul did not make atonement and who can 
estimate his merit in entering the battle with his sons and offering 
himself and them to God, knowing full well that he and they were going 
to their death? 2 On the other hand, who is to say whether souls, even 
those of the righteous, upon their first arriving in the other world, 
before they are allowed to taste of glory, must not first go through a 
period of purification? For there is not a righteous man on earth who 
does not sin and so it is possible that a sinner such as Sa'ul might be 
together temporarily in the company of a righteous man such as Semu'el 
who had died just a short while earlier. 

The verses he adduces to show that the power and valour of the 
living exceed those of the dead are totally irrelevant to the present case, 
in which there is no question of a comparison between the dead and 
the living. But it is hardly surprising that a person who thinks he can 
be so knowledgeable without ever having had a teacher should utter 
absurdities and that the very fate should befall him which is contained 
in Selomo's warning: 

[...] do not attempt to be overly wise, lest you lose your reason 

[Eccl. 7, 16]. 


2 Without quoting it, da Silva here comes closest to the Talmud's literal inter¬ 
pretation, i.e., "with me" = "assigned to the same place in the hereafter," namely heaven. 
Cf. note 2 on da Costa’s chapter 2. 



492 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Quite mad, indeed, and frantic is he who is now denying and will 
go on ever more radically to deny the authenticity of the Scriptures, 
approved and accepted by the entire ancient and wise congregation of 
Yisra'el as well as by the sages of the gentiles. 

He goes on to say: 

Argument 6: "'Eliyahu was carried off to heaven and is alive; ‘Elisa c 
revived a corpse.” Even granting that these things are to be understood 
quite literally, by no means would they support the immortality of the 
soul; rather it would seem that if God wanted to keep ‘Eliyahu alive 
in order to send him to preach to humanity, it was because if he were 
dead he could not return to the world, except God created him anew 
as He created the first man. He therefore extended his life (if it is true), 
but He did not make him immortal, for after having carried out his 
mission, he must die. (Were we to consult the Sadducees on this section 
of Scripture, we would hear them say that this maintaining of ‘Eliyahu 
alive seems hardly necessary, as there is no limit to God's power to 
commission people of spirit every time He so desires, whom he uses 
as His messengers.) In the same way the dead boy whom ‘Elisa c 
resuscitated by stretching himself upon him, putting his mouth to his 
mouth and his hands on his hands (a neat way to perform miracles and 
resuscitate the dead! God does not operate in this fashion), does not 
have any bearing on the question. This dead boy to whom God (if that 
is the way it happened) in His mercy gave a new spirit, died once again, 
and was not resuscitated to eternal life. So in what way does his 
revivification demonstrate immortality, which is what we are dealing 
with? And yet there is much more to be said about the truth of these 
miracles which God never performed at any other time, nor was it His 
custom to kill people in order to revive them afterwards. In the Second 
Book of Samuel we read that David's servants expressed surprise at 
seeing him eat when he heard about the death of his son (he had been 
fasting until then). He explained: ‘‘While the child was yet alive, I fasted 
and wept, because I said: ‘Who knoweth, but that the Lord will be 
gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead, wherefore 
should I fast then? Can I restore him to life again? I am going to him, 
but he will not return to me’” [2Sm. 12, 22-23]. Another miracle, which 
surely seems a made up and unnecessary one — and God is not in the 
habit of performing such superfluous and almost childish miracles — 
is told of ‘Elisa c . He went in the company of the prophets to cut wood 
by the Yarden and an axe-head belonging to one of them fell into the 
river. The man was grieved and exclaimed: ‘‘Oh, Master! it was a 
borrowed one” [2Kgs. 6,5]. Thereupon ‘Elisa c thrust a stick into the 
water and the iron came up, so that the man who had lost it fished 
it out and took hold of it: that this axe-head story should be treated 
as a miracle is almost unbelievable. One should realize that quite a 
number of books which the Pharisees try to pass off as genuine are 
rejected by the Sadducees, who tell us which ones are true. I cannot 
precisely indicate which ones, since I have never been in touch with 
the Sadducees. However, even without such contact, by the nature of 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


493 


the material, it is quite possible to discover which books, or which parts 
of them, should be either rejected or received. And I dare say that 
because the Pharisees are so suspect or, rather, so devious in their 
ways, any part of Scripture that has nothing else going for it than 
their testimony, should be treated with caution. If, however, its authen¬ 
ticity were further impugned by other jews, then it deserves no 
confidence whatsoever. Those who love truth and are desirous of 
reaching it, should therefore try with all their might to find out what 
the Sadducees say about the canon of the Pharisees. One should make 
this effort so as not to have to live with and be fooled by the falsehoods 
contained in these books. By this means will that true knowledge be 
achieved, which is presently impeded by reliance on obscure and vain 
parts of Scripture. 

How is one to put up with such blind ignorance? He says that he 
will pronounce on the canonicity of Scripture if he gets a chance to 
speak with the Sadducees and gather information from them, as if the 
Sadducees had any authority among our people and were not detested 
by us! He sets himself up in our midst as their spokesman, but he is 
much mistaken if he thinks he can escape exemplary punishment for 
the impudence and lack of respect of his words or, rather, his folly and 
blindness in believing and following what he himself admits never to 
have seen or learnt! 

Scripture says: 

[...] and 'Eliyahu went up by a storm of wind into heaven [2Kgs. 2, 11] 

and moreover: 

Behold, I am sending you 'Eliyahu the prophet, before the coming of 
the great day of the Lord [cf. Mai. 3, 23] 

What regard can we have for one who would deny these words or 
cast doubt on them by commenting "if that is the way it happened”? 3 
He alleges that this maintaining of "Eliyahu alive would hardly be 
necessary, since God has the power to commission people of spirit every 
time He so desires. Why should we reply to him? He fails to realize 
that God does not make absolute power an instrument for cheating holy 
men of the high role their exploits earned them, such as the one merited 
by the zealous "Eliyahu. 4 


3 Da Costa never said "if that is the way it happened” about the contents of either 
of the verses just quoted. 

4 Da Silva does not address da Costa's point that the laws of nature need not be 
broken to accomodate Providence. Moreover, since da Silva believes that the true rewards 



494 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Now if he considers superfluous the miracle of the child 
resuscitated by ’Elisa c and makes a mockery of the efforts expended 
by the prophet to prepare and warm up the cold limbs of the dead boy; 
if he denies the miracle of the axe-head which swam in the waters of 
the Yarden and came up to the surface: then he denies all those which, 
according to the second book of Kings were performed by ’Elisa c . 
What then is the distinction between the miracles he subjects to ridicule 
and those he does not mention, such as crossing the waters of the 
Yarden without getting wet; summoning she-bears who mauled 42 small 
boys; purifying the polluted waters of Yeriho; the poorly seasoned and 
bitter pot of broth made edible; the barley bread more than sufficing 
to feed all the people? How are these miracles superior to those he calls 
f ’superfluous”? If God is "not in the habit of performing such 
superfluous miracles” why should He have performed any of them? 
Could not all these things have been effected without recourse to 
miracles? If he absolutely insists on denying all those of *Elisa c , why 
stop short of Mose's miracle at the waters of Mara, which waters he 
made sweet and healthy by throwing a log into them at God's command? 

In the matter of David's fasting while the boy was'still alive, but 
eating and putting on fresh clothes after he died, what the adversary 
claims as support for his position seems to me to go totally against it, 
for when David says: 

[...] I am going to him, but he will not return to me [2Sm. 12, 23] 

he shows that he did not consider his son to be totally lost and 
annihilated. "I will go to him” are words of consolation and happiness, 
showing that David expects to find his son in glory and bliss. If David 
had meant that he was going to look for his son in the grave, these words 
would hardly have occasioned rejoicing, but would rather have revived 
his grief, for there would have been nothing left of him. The phrase "I 
am going to him” is an affirmation of his son's continued existence and 
the phrase "he will not return to me” signifies: ’he will return, not to 
me in my lifetime, but after many aeons, at the time of Resurrection.’ 
For thus says the Lord: 

Thy dead shall live [...] awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust, for 
a dew on herbs is thy dew and the earth shall cast out the departed 
[Is. 26, 19]. 


are enjoyed in another world, it is surprising that he considers Elijah to be cheated of 
his dues, except he be allowed to return and fulfill an eschatological mission on earth 
(unless Elijah never died and is thus excluded from paradisiac bliss). 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


495 


Chapter 20 

Wherein the Argument of Divine Justice is Repeated 
and the Adversary’s Erroneous Explanation Concerning It is Exposed 


The adversary goes on to say: 

Argument 7: "In many psalms we read that the wicked will be destroyed 
from the face of the earth and the righteous will flourish. Therefore 
it is necessary that there be another life, because in this one the wicked 
flourish and the righteous suffer; the wicked are not punished nor are 
the just rewarded." We reply that indeed we read in the Psalms of the 
destruction of the wicked and the flourishing of the righteous, which 
is true doctrine, based on the Law itself. We deny, however, what 
follows, that the wicked are not punished in this life nor the just 
rewarded, because a saying such as this stands in total contradiction 
to the truth and foundation of the Law, which proclaims over and over 
again: ‘do good so that it go well with thee and with your children after 
thee’: "[...] for I the Lord thy God, powerful, jealous, who visits the 
iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the 
fourth of them that hate Me; And who show mercy unto the thousandth, 
to them that love Me and keep My commandments" [cf. Ex. 20, 5-6]. 
In the present life, then, God requites evil-doing on the head of the 
perpetrator and on the head of his children and descendants; and he 
also recompenses the righteous, benefiting his seed practically unto 
eternity, as He recompensed 'Abraham and 'Abraham's seed, howsoever 
that seed provoked the divine ire many times and to such an extent, 
that it merited destruction or at least total repudiation. Nevertheless, 
being the seed of 'Abraham, God did not withdraw His mercy from it, 
as He did from other peoples: rather will He remember to restore it 
to its former glory, as it says respecting its ancestors and the cove¬ 
nant made with them: "Know then that the Eternal thy God, He is God, 
the faithful God, Who keepeth the covenant and the mercy with those 
that love Him and those that keep His commandments to the thousandth 
generation. And that He repayeth those that hate Him to their face, 
to destroy him [He will not delay to him that hateth Him, He will repay 
him to his face" (Dt. 7, 9-10)]. ‘To his face does God repay the wicked. 
He does not defer his punishment very long.’ This is the teaching of 
the Law; this is the true teaching, in which we believe. But if we often 
see that the wicked flourish and do not receive their punishment 
straight away, or in the manner that we would have wanted, we must 
consider that our vision is too limited to grasp God's ordering of the 
world and the profound nature of the wisdom with which He governs 
it. God looks to the heart, sees and knows what each one deserves and 
in accordance with that He repays him. We, on the other hand, look 



496 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


to the exterior and judge as if we were blind. If God is slow to punish 
evil, it is because He does not desire to destroy man but rather wants 
him to repent: "[...] for the iniquity of the Emorites is not full until now” 
[Gn. 15, 16]. However, punishment is sure to overtake the unrepentant: 
"If he turn not, He will whet His sword; He bendeth His bow and 
maketh it ready [And for him He prepareth] the vessels of death; [He 
will fashion] His arrows [against the persecutors]” [Ps. 7, 13-14]. To be 
sure, when punishment seems long in coming, we assume that the 
wicked get away with it. Yet we should know that the bliss of the wicked 
is not assured, but rather, if they persist in their wickedness, their 
downfall is certain: "I have seen the wicked rooted and sprouting 
branches like a green laurel. Yet he passed and lo he was no more; and 
I sought him but he could not be found” [Ps. 37, 35-36]. This we see 
happening every day. God cuts off many a one who thought life was 
just beginning. He afflicts with various sicknesses and diseases. He 
sends hunger and poverty, subjects the high-born to humiliation and 
brings low prosperous houses so suddenly that one is amazed to see 
how men and their children whom one knew in better days have come 
down in the world. This then is what is meant by "the wicked passed”, 
this is what is meant by "seeking him and finding no sign of him.” In 
the same way great kingdoms have passed, which God at one time used 
as instruments for the chastisement of other peoples, and all of them 
received their deserts or will as yet receive them, for God lives, sees 
and judges the world each day, and nothing happens in the world that 
is not a result of His judgement, though often inscrutable to mankind. 
Of the good and the righteous, on the other hand, it is said: "I was young, 
I am also grown old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor 
their seed seeking for bread” [Ps. 37, 25]. So it is in this life that God 
recompenses the righteous and the wicked: [’’Behold the righteous is 
recompensed on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner” 
(Pr. 11, 31)]. Let no one be so stupid and mad as to believe otherwise 
and to draw so foolish a conclusion that is in contradiction with the 
truth and the essence of the Law. For were he to put it to the test, he 
would learn that truth from bitter experience, as befell a certain poet, 
foremost among those of his nation. Having apparently emulated the 
career of the wicked, thinking that for them there was no retribution, 
he was ultimately forced to confess: "I have always seen the righteous 
suffer / Terrible torments in this world / And what is even more 
astonishing /1 have always seen the wicked bathe / In a sea of satisfac¬ 
tions. / Thinking that I would thus attain / The bliss so poorly shared 
out /1 was wicked, but I was punished; / And so it is only in my case / 
That this world is set in order.” Surely he is a madman who would 
believe that good invariably befalls the wicked. One day good may befall 
them, but at the end they will be destroyed. On the other hand, the 
righteous may one day suffer evil, either because God wishes to test 
them, or because there is no man so righteous that he does not deserve 
some punishment. However, at the end they will have peace. Let then 
man — in whose judgement that which in God's eyes is evil so often 
seems good — lower somewhat the wings of presumption with which 
he would fain usurp the place of God and make himself judge of all 
the earth. When he witnesses events whose meaning he does not grasp, 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


497 


let him leave it to God, the righteous judge, who governs the world with 
wisdom so far superior to that of humans that, exert themselves as 
they may, they cannot fathom it. As Selomo says: "Then did I see the 
whole work of God, that a man is not able to find out the work that 
is done under the sun, in as much as though a man were to toil to seek 
for it, he would yet not find it: and even if the wise man were to say 
that he wishes to know, he would not be able to find it" [Eccl. 8, 17]. 
Let man merely be aware that God is judge of the earth, and impar¬ 
tially rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked thereof. So let 
the one who wonders about the righteous Hebei perishing at the hands 
of the perfidious Kayin, consider that this death may have been the 
result of his father's sin and learn to fear God who extends the punish¬ 
ment of the sinner to his children. This last point really deserves a long 
discourse, but we must now break off and come to an end, for what 
we have so far demonstrated is more than sufficient to annul the 
opposing argument, which is spurious and against the true teaching 
of the Law. 

This is a superfluous and verbose tirade, intended to demonstrate 
that mankind does not understand and cannot attain to the judgements 
of God and that it errs in its appraisal of them, believing a wicked person 
to be righteous, and a righteous person wicked; and, further, that the 
high and mighty fall and the lowly rise by virtue of Divine Providence. 
None of this is relevant to the argument which is solely concerned with 
the righteous who spend and end their lives in suffering and the trium¬ 
phant wicked who enjoy wealth and peace of mind until their very last 
breath. Who would deny the examples of this truth unless he be an 
ignorant and arrogant gainsayer who has not studied Scripture or, if 
he has, did not understand what he read? Leaving aside the example 
of Ya c aqob and c Esav to which we have referred in this connection 
earlier on (see chapter 6), how would he react to the case of Yosiyahu, 
king of Yehuda, about whom Scripture says: 

[...] he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord and walked 
in all the way of David his father and turned not aside to the right nor 
to the left [...] And like him there was not before him, a king that turned 
to the Lord with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, 
according to all the Tora of Mose; neither after him arose there any 
like him [2Kgs. 22, 2; 23, 25) 

and yet this saintly king was killed at the hands of Far c o Neko, king 
of Egypt. So Yesa c yahu was killed by Menase, and Yirmeyahu, sanc¬ 
tified in his mother's womb and such a zealous upholder of the Law, 
was persecuted, endlessly afflicted and finally carried off captive to 



498 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Egypt where he suffered martyrdom . l . Similarly Zekarya was put to 
death by the people, and many other righteous individuals met a violent 
end. Yet countless tyrants and other evildoers died peacefully. 

Now what does our opponent say to the murder of innocent and 
righteous Hebei at the hands of Kayin? He attributes it to their father's 
sins! It is a falsehood, contrary to that law which prescribes that only 
the person who sins shall perish [Ezek. 18, 20] and proclaims that a 
father shall not die for the sins of his son, nor a son for his father's. 2 

The converse is also true: the merits of a righteous father will not 
save a wicked son from punishment for his misdeeds, as may be seen 
in Scripture. For instance, the sins of the people of Yisra'el, for which 
it is punished by having to die in the desert, do not prevent the next 
generation from entering and taking possession of the Holy Land; Qorah 
and his followers rebel, the earth opens up and swallows them alive, 
but Qorah's children remain safe and sound; God finds in David a man 
after His heart, but this intimacy avails his sons 'Absalom, c Amnon 
and 'Adonyahu nothing, for they must pay for their sins with their 
blood and their lives. The merits of 'Abraham, Yishaq and Ya c aqob are 
great, to be sure, but they do not protect their sinning descendants 
from chastisement. This truth is in no way contradicted by the Law, 
which states: 

[...] I 'Adonai thy God, a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers 
upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth of those that 
hate Me; but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and 
to those who keep My commandments [Ex. 20, 5-6] 


1 In the pseudepigraphical book "The Martyrdom of Isaiah” (hypothetically dated 
1st century) the false prophet Belchira discovers Isaiah's retreat and accuses him before 
king Manasseh on three grounds: that he had prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem; 
that he had claimed to see God, though Moses had said that no man shall see God and 
live; that he had called Jerusalem Sodom and its princes and people Gomorrah. On account 
of these things Manasseh had Isaiah sawn asunder with a wood saw. Cf. R. H. Charles 
(ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 2, Oxford, 1913, 
155-162: 155. Echoes of this tale are found in later Talmudic literature, e.g. B.T. Sanhedrin 
103b; Yebamot 49b; J.T. Sanhedrin 10, 2. For the tradition that Jeremiah was stoned in 
Egypt, cf. Tertullian (Adversus Gnosticos, 8; Patrologia Latina, 2, 137); Jerome (Adversus 
Jovinianum, 2, 37; Patrologia Latina, 23, 335). 

2 This latter part of the "prescription”, which Da Silva is careful enough not to 
attribute directly to Ezekiel, is obviously his own paraphrase of the second clause of 
Ezek. 18, 20. However, he is less scrupulous when he chooses to ignore da Costa's cita¬ 
tion of Ex. 20, 5-6. In da Costa's reply we shall meet a reversed selectivity in citing from 
among the apparently contradictory biblical verses that deal with the justice of patrilineal 
guilt and virtue. Perhaps unbeknown to our two polemicists, the Talmud (Makkot 24a) 
had declared these scriptural texts irreconcilable. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


499 


because the words "those that hate Me and those that love Me” contain 
the true explanation of those verses, namely that the children who carry 
on the wickedness of their parents are called "haters” and are punished 
unto the third and fourth generations, but those children who carry 
on their parents' righteousness are "lovers” and will be rewarded with 
divine lovingkindness for thousands of generations. 

This means that in both categories some part of the reward or the 
punishment deserved by the righteousness or the wickedness of the first 
generation will be communicated to later ones, but the principal of the 
reward or of the punishment will doubtlessly be reserved for one's own 
merits or demerits. So that neither will the righteous offspring of a 
wicked individual be chastised because of his father's sin, nor will the 
evil offspring of a righteous person be absolved from punishment due 
to his father's worthiness. It is therefore certain that the reward of the 
righteous and the punishment of the wicked await them in the hereafter. 

To convince ourselves more thoroughly of this truth, let us see what 
a comparison between the children of Yisra'el and the gentiles can teach 
us. The latter govern, exercise dominion and triumph, whereas the 
former wander from country to country, suffer and bewail their hard¬ 
ships. The gentiles enjoy wealth, fame and reputation. Concerning 
Yisra'el, Yesa c yahu says: 

[...] he has no form nor comeliness [...] despised and rejected of men; 
a man of pains and accustomed to sicknesses [...] [Is. 53, 2-3]. 

Now this situation has been going on, not for one or two lifetimes, 
but for many. So we must perforce conclude either that in another life 
bliss is provided for those who deserve, but did not obtain it or that 
the people of Yisra'el is the worst brood of scoundrels in the world and 
the most deserving of evils and punishments — a demonstrable 
falsehood, for God says in respect to them: 

Open the gates that the righteous nation that keeps faithfulness may 
enter in [Is. 26, 2] 

which is like saying let Yisra'el come to enjoy divine glory and receive 
the reward for the faithfulness with which it served its God among the 
gentiles and loathed idolatry.’ As the Psalmist says, speaking in the 
name of the people of Yisra'el: 

If we had forgotten the name of our God, or stretched out our hands 
to a strange God [...] [Ps. 44, 21]. 



500 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREA TISE 


This is said in view of the present state and captivity of God's 
people, as is clearly revealed in the rest of that psalm and in many others 
which proclaim this truth. The following verse speaks to it specifically: 

When evil men spring up as grass and all those who do iniquity flourish, 
it is in order to be ultimately destroyed [Ps. 92, 8] 

and mark also what Selomo says: 

[...] there is a just man who perishes in his righteousness [...] [Eccl. 7,15]. 

The verse which our opponent adduces: 

[...] I have not seen a just man forsaken nor his seed begging bread 
[Ps. 37, 25] 

in reality supports the truth of our position, for by observing that a 
just man is not abandoned, it implies that he does suffer hardships and 
troubles in this world, but that in the midst of them God consoles him 
and does not let go of his hand, as the Psalmist says: 

[...] for Thou 'Adonai will not forsake those who seek Thee [Ps. 9, 11] 

and as is written in the Law: 

[...] 'Adonai God, He it is that goes with thee; He will not fail thee nor 
forsake thee [cf. Dt. 31, 6]. 

Finally, the Psalmist tells us that in their afflictions the righteous 
are different from the wicked, because the latter despair and are aban¬ 
doned, but the former, on the contrary, have faith in God and are 
sustained, as he says: 

[...] he that trusts in 'Adonai, lovingkindness will surround him 
[Ps. 32, 10]. 

Later, when it says the righteous man's seed will not go begging 
for bread, this fits in well with what we have stated concerning the 
blessings which God adds to the just rewards of the righteous son of 
a righteous father. Thus, in that verse God, in addition to the favour 
of not abandoning him, promises him bread, that is to say, temporal 
benefits which the righteous man who is not the son of a righteous man 
often goes without. But obviously these temporal goods do not suffice 



SEMD’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


501 


to make up what is owing to the righteous, seeing that so many 
unrighteous people possess them in far greater abundance. 

Our opponent cites a poem as if it agreed with his position. This 
shows that he misunderstood it. The poet goes even further than we 
did and, with poetic licence, exaggerates, saying that he saw tribula¬ 
tion assail all good people, while all bad people prosper. Having 
concluded that this is an absolute rule, he expresses amazement that 
he is the only exception, in as much as he had suffered hardships by 
following that very path which all others had found strewn with riches. 
The poet failed to perceive that the fate of some sinners is so wretched 
that they go through two hells, one in this world and the other in the 
world-to-come. That fate is indeed what this poet deserved, for he 
committed evil in the mistaken belief that doing so would profit him. 
Thus will evil befall all those who sin out of pride, refusing to free 
themselves from their depraved opinions. Concerning such as these, 
Yesa c yahu says: 

Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil [...] [Is. 5, 20] 


Chapter 21 

The Truth is Revealed More Clearly 
by Other Scriptural Verses Misunderstood by our Adversary 


Our adversary goes on to say: 

Argument 8: "It is written: Tor Thou wilt not leave my soul in the grave; 
nor wilt Thou suffer Thy righteous one to see the pit’ [Ps. 16, 10]. 
Similarly: 'Oh how great is Thy goodness which Thou hast hidden for 
those that fear Thee [...]’ [Ps. 31, 20].” We reply that all this is irrele¬ 
vant. The meaning of the first verse is as follows: 'You will not allow 
my soul to fall into the hands of my enemies nor that I should go down 
to the grave through their machinations.* David, rejoicing at having 
God on his side to protect him, is saying that, sheltered by Him, 
he sleeps tranquilly, without fear. It does not mean that after his death 
God will take his soul out of the grave, because this contradicts 
what follows: ''Thou wilt not allow Thy righteous one to see the pit” 
[Ps. 16, 10]. Nor does it mean that he would never ''see the pit*’, because 
everyone ends up ''seeing the pit”: no mortal can escape it (as it says 



502 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


elsewhere: "What man shall live and not see death? shall he deliver 
his soul from the power of the pit?” [Ps. 89, 49]), but rather does it 
[Ps. 16, 10] mean that God would not leave his soul in mortal danger, 
nor consent that he should go down to the pit through the wicked 
intrigues of those who were hounding him, as we explained above. David 
consoles himself this way elsewhere in the Psalms, too. As to the second 
verse: "Oh! How great is Thy goodness that Thou hast hidden for those 
that fear Thee [...]” [Ps. 31, 20], it is self-explanatory when one takes 
into account what follows: "[... that] Thou hast wrought for those that 
trust in Thee before the sons of men.” So we see that it is here below, 
before the sons of men, that God works this goodness. And just what 
is this goodness? "Thou wilt conceal them in the secret of Thy presence 
from the insurrections of man; Thou wilt conceal them in a tent from 
the strife of tongues” [Ps. 31, 21]. As if to say: 'You shall be my protec¬ 
tion and refuge from the persecution of men, their betrayals and 
wickednesses.’ He was giving thanks to the Lord for having shielded 
him from these evils. These favours are such as take place in the 
presence of the sons of men here on earth. Favours of another kind 
we are not going to dream up, and if we do have dreams, dreams they 
will remain. 

It is written: 

For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to the pit; Thou wilt not suffer Thy 
righteous one to see the pit [Ps. 16, 10]. 1 

This commentator tries to explain the verse to fit his theory, but 
he neglects to pay attention to the verse that follows: 

Thou makest known to me the path of life, fullness of joy in Thy 
presence; beauty at Thy right hand evermore [Ps. 16, 11] 

which his misguided interpretation of Psalm 16, 10 would deprive of 
any connection with it, because verse 11 clearly alludes to the future 
world and has no bearing on this world. For instance, when the Psalmist 
says "Thou makest known to me the path of life” he is not supplicating 
['make known to me’] — for David already knew the paths of the Law, 
which are what life consists of —, but the expression is indicative of 
the future: 'You will make known to me’, as if to say: 'when I die, then 
You will make known to me the path of life, the path by which to climb 


l Da Silva cites the Ferrara translation slavishly even here where it renders two 
distinct Hebrew words (se’ol and sahat) by fuesa, though he has just cited the same verse 
in da Costa's careful Portuguese rendering wherein the two words are distinguished. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


503 


to heaven and to join the company of the angels of the Lord, for that 
is the true life’. "Fullness of joy in Thy presence” signifies Tor then 
I shall enjoy the radiance of Your divinity, which is the true "joy in 
Thy presence,” because at that time my soul, already separated from 
the burdens of this body, will have the ability and the strength to see 
the truth clearly’. And "beauty at Thy right hand evermore” means Then 
shall I take true delight in the contemplation of the Lord which is, as 
it were, a gift given with the right hand (by which is meant mercy); this 
will be for evermore, a bliss without the interruptions and decay which 
spoil the enjoyment of worldly pleasures’. 

To understand this verse even better, it should be taken in conjunc¬ 
tion with verse 9: 

Therefore my heart was glad and my honour was pleased; my flesh also 
will dwell secure. For Thou wilt not abandon my soul [...] [Ps. 16, 9-10]. 

This does not amount to the Psalmist boasting that he would not 
die, for in one way or another death is inevitable, but rather that 
he would die in such a manner that hope of an afterlife would never 
be lost. And he justifies: "therefore my heart was glad, etc.,” that 
is, T am confident that You will not abandon my soul to the grave 
for, despite the gravity of my sin, you sent me notice through Nathan 
the prophet, saying: 

[...] the Lord also hath commuted [the punishment for] thy sin [...] 
[2Sm. 12, 13] 

whence I conclude with certainty that You shall not allow my soul to 
be separated from You, nor be counted among the lost ones, for this 
is what is meant by the soul seeing the pit.’ 

The verse: 

O how great is Thy goodness which Thou hast laid up for those who 
fear Thee, which Thou hast performed for those who trust in Thee in 
the sight of the sons of man! [Ps. 31, 20] 

has two distinct parts: one concerning the bliss which the Lord keeps 
hidden, in readiness to impart it to those who fear Him in the world- 
to-come; the other concerning the weal He imparts to them in this world. 
So the future bliss which is kept in reserve for the righteous by the 
Lord does not detract from the weal He works for them here and now. 
About the future bliss the Psalmist says: "how great is Thy goodness 



504 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


which Thou hast hidden”; about the present weal he says: "Thou hast 
performed [...] in the sight of the sons of man.” In the first case he speaks 
in the superlative: "How great!” as if to say: 'the very highest degree 
of goodness, which is without comparison’ and he says: "Your 
goodness,” 'a bliss which is Yours alone and hidden by You, so that 
no one knows or comprehends anything about it.’ In the second case 
he says: "Thou hast performed in the sight of the sons of man.” And 
because it is impossible for bliss to be hidden and simultaneously also 
in full sight of the sons of man, we are forced to accept the presence 
of two distinct happinesses in this verse and to interpret the Psalmist 
as signifying that one is concealed, the other manifest. 

Our opponent’s attempt to explain the "concealing” in the verse: 
"Thou wilt conceal them [...] from the insurrections of man; Thou wilt 
conceal them [...] from the strife of tongues” [Ps. 31, 21] as applying to 
the persons of the righteous, is far-fetched. It is rather the bliss which 
is concealed — not people. Of persons Scripture would not say that God 
conceals them, 2 but rather that He succours, defends and protects 
them and, if indeed He wishes to protect them, there is no reason to 
conceal them. But if the Psalmist had really intended the verb "conceal” 
to apply to people in verse 21, the preceding verse should have read: 
'O how You conceal those who fear You!’ rather than "How great is 
Thy goodness that Thou hast hidden (for) those that fear Thee.” It is 
therefore useless to waste any further time on the ridiculous figments 
of this foolish dreamer's imagination. 


2 Cf. however Jer. 36, 26: "The king ordered Jerahmeel [...], Seraiah [...] and 
Shelemiah [...] to seize Baruch the scribe and Jeremiah the prophet, but the Lord concealed 
them.’’ 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


505 


Chapter 22 

About the Resurrection of the Dead 
and the False Explanation of the Verses Adduced to Contradict It 


The adversary goes on to say: 

To argument 9, concerning what is written in Yesa c yahu: "Thy dead 
shall live [...]” [Is. 26, 19] we reply that the prophet does not speak of 
the true dead, of those who ended the natural course of life, nor does 
he say that these would rise. No, the dead of which he speaks are the 
people of Yisra'el scattered throughout the lands, and reckoned as if 
they were dead: so dead, that no one believes that they will once again 
become a people, but rather that they will always remain prostrate, 
dejected, vile, withered and dried up. That is precisely the way Yehezqel 
describes them in chapter 37, where he explains that the dry bones are 
the House of Yisra'el, who say: "[•••] Dried are our bones and lost is 
our hope; we are quite cut off” [Ezek. 37, 11]. And, following the same 
thought, it says: "[...] Behold I will open your graves [and I will cause 
you to come up out of your graves (...)]” [Ezek. 37, 12]. It does not say 
that veritable corpses will be pulled out of the graves, but that He would 
gather the living, who were as good as dead, from all the lands where 
they had been dispersed — which were like graves as far as they were 
concerned — and that He would bring them back to the land of Yisra'el. 
The two prophetical passages are analogous and both are to be 
understood parabolically, not literally. And to make our point even 
clearer we shall cite a verse that comes a bit earlier in this chapter 
of Yesa c yahu. From start to finish this chapter speaks of the 
ingathering of Yisra'el and shows how God chastises other peoples 
differently from the way He chastises Yisra'el. In respect of the others 
it says: "The dead will not live, the departed will not rise; therefore 
hast Thou visited and destroyed them, and made to perish every 
memorial of them” [Is. 26, 14], meaning to say that the Lord castigates 
these peoples and changes them to such a degree that they do not return 
to their erstwhile state. Yisra'el, however, He chastises in another 
manner: "Thou hast done more for the nation, O Lord, Thou hast done 
more for the nation; Thou hast glorified Thyself; which Thou hast 
extended to the ends of the earth” [Is. 26, 15] which means: 'You have 
heaped up, O Lord, You have multiplied Your miracles for this people 
and thus You have glorified Yourself: people whom You had cast away 
unto the ends of the earth’. In other words, after all the evils have 
passed, after long periods of hope: "Thy dead shall live [...]” [Is. 26, 19]: 
'Your wounded, Your tormented, wasted away and reckoned on earth 
as if they were dead — will live. The earth will eject them and they 
will sprout from it as if they were grass’. It is exactly like what we read 



506 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


in the next chapter: "In future generations shall Ya c aqob yet take root; 
Yisra'el shall bud and blossom [...]” [Is. 27, 6]. These similitudes and 
figurative ways of speaking should be understood with sound common 
sense, and not, injudiciously, taken at face value. Then comes the place 
in Iyob: "And I know that my Redeemer liveth and at last on the dust 
I will stand [...]” [Job 19, 25]. We reply that the meaning given this verse 
by many interpreters is very far from the one intended by Iyob, who 
was simply trying to express his confidence that God would yet raise 
him from the place where he lay, enfeebled and ulcerated. Once back 
on his feet he intends to offer sacrifices and praises as had once been 
his wont: "I know that my Redeemer liveth [...]”: T know that the One 
in whom I have trust is the living God, who has the power to redeem 
me, deliver me and raise me up, to remove from me the anguish, tribula¬ 
tions and misery which beset me’ (every time God delivers men from 
evils, tribulations and dangers, He is called God the Redeemer, as for 
instance when He redeemed the people from Egyptian slavery: this is 
unquestionably so), — [...] and at last on the dust I shall stand [...] — 
T shall walk and I shall move about, even though at present, my friends, 
I seem to you in such poor shape for walking; and after this skin of 
mine is crushed [...] [Job 19, 26] — after the infirmity, sickness and 
wounds with which I am afflicted (— Thereupon Satan went forth from 
the presence of the Lord and he smote Iyob with a sore inflammation 
from the sole of his foot unto the crown of his head [Job 2, 7] —), 
after the vermin bred in them or which came out of the dust on which 
I am seated (— My flesh became covered with worms and clods of dust; 
my skin is torn and become undone [Job 7, 5] —) cease mistreating 
this skin and flesh, then: —[...] from my flesh shall I behold God 
[Job 19, 26] —, then, mended, convalesced and restored to my former 
strength and soundness, shall I see God. I shall rise early and betake 
myself to the place where I used to bring Him sacrifices (— and he rose 
up early and brought burnt-offerings [Job 1, 5] —), and thus shall I see 
God: — Whom I shall behold to me (dative used in Hebrew: whom 
I shall myself behold] [...] and not a stranger [...] [Job 19, 27] —. It will 
not be another in my stead; I myself will do the beholding. Be 
undeceived, O you friends who persecute, calumniate and insult me 

— saying that it is because of my wickedness that I am in this parlous 
state (— these ten times have ye made me ashamed; do ye not blush 
when ye show yourselves so insensitive to me? [Job 19, 3] —). Be 
undeceived and know that even though I have told you and you see that 

— to my skin and to my flesh my bone doth cleave and I escaped with 
the skin of my teeth (with the skin cleaving to my teeth) [Job 19, 20] —, 
nevertheless I have strong hopes (or, rather, I know for certain) that 
I shall see myself raised up from this state and brought back to my 
former one; I will be on my feet; I shall see my flesh restored and I 
shall give thanks to God and offer Him new sacrifices’. All this Iyob 
was to see fulfilled in himself after God removed His scourge, as we 
read at the end of the book. He himself went to see God and brought 
a burnt-offering on behalf of his friends. Truly, this should be suffi¬ 
cient to disabuse those who fool themselves by interpreting this passage 
in a manner different from the many others in the same book of Iyob 
which clearly deny the raising up of the dead, as we have already shown. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


507 


Some people misinterpret the expression "at last” to mean a last Judge¬ 
ment at the end of the world, which is all in their imagination. As if 
it could not simply mean an end, either an end which may be around 
the corner, or one a few days away, all according to the context! Let 
us consider, for instance, the following verse: "Who hath fed thee in 
the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, in order to 
afflict thee and in order to prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter 
end” [Dt. 8, 16]. Here the "latter end” means at the end of the 40 years 
of wandering in the desert before entering the Promised Land. No doubt 
Iyob was speaking of the "latter end” of his illness, not of the "latter 
end” of the world (which will never end). This is shown clearly by the 
final verses of the book: "And the Lord blessed the latter end of Job 
more than his beginning, and he had fourteen thousand sheep [...]” 
[Job 42, 12]. This was the "last” of which Iyob was speaking and the 
one he hoped for. Moreover, because it says: "and from my flesh shall 
I behold God” [Job 19, 26], they dream that man really and physically 
is to see God in heaven, after having been given a new body. But "to 
see God” means to worship Him in the Temple or in any place devoted 
to divine service: "[...] and My face shall not be seen in vain [Ex. 23, 15; 
34, 20]”: 'You shall not come before Me to the place of My dwelling 
without bringing an offering’. It is in this way that Iyob saw God when, 
restored to health, he went to bring Him burnt-offerings: the way they 
interpret this "seeing” is madness. 

The verse in Yesa c yahu reads as follows: 

Thy dead shall live, as my corpse shall they arise; awake and sing, ye 
that dwell in the dust, for a dew of greens is thy dew, and the earth 
shall cast out the departed [cf. Is. 26, 19]. 


It will come as quite a surprise to anyone who has taken note of 
our opponent's discourses and who remembers that his distaste for 
allegorical commentaries is so great that for him "soul” means "blood” 
and "blood” means soul, to see him suddenly wringing such forced 
meanings out of Scripture. It is sheer cussedness! To say that by "the 
departed” in this passage we are to understand the living nation, which 
is considered dead because it dwells in exile, is unacceptable, because 
there are innumerable places where Scripture expressly promises the 
redemption and ingathering of the people. It would be bizarre to conceal 
under a parable that which is so frequently proclaimed loud and clear. 

He then claims to find "confirmation” of this peregrine interpreta¬ 
tion, in Yehezqel's vision of the dry bones [Ezek. 37], concerning which 
the prophet says that God laid sinews, flesh and skin upon them and 
infused them with spirit and life. For our opponent this too is but an 
allegory, which signifies the scattered nation, dried up and withered 
like bones, but still alive, and only figuratively entombed in sepulchres 



508 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


out of which God promises to raise it. This explanation is utterly false. 
The verse can only be referring to real corpses which had lain buried 
during long exile, and one is therefore bound to believe in all their 
vicissitudes as narrated in this chapter. Rabbi Eli c ezer declared "that 
the dead whom Yehezqel resurrected, stood up and sang a song. And 
just what song was that? 

'Adonai killeth and reviveth; He killeth with justice and reviveth with 
mercy [cf. ISm. 2, 6]. 1 

According to Rabbi Yehosua c the song they sang was: 

'Adonai killeth and reviveth; He bringeth down to the grave and raiseth 
up [ISm. 2, 6]. 

But Robi [Eli c ezer the son of Rabbi] Jose the Galilean went much 
further and said that the dead whom Yehezqel revived journeyed to 
the Land of Yisra'el, married and begat sons and daughters. In any case, 
all of them agree 2 that these dead came back to life, because, were it 
not so, one would have to conclude that the example is false and, in 
that case, so would also be false that which is being exemplified. But 
since that which is being exemplified is true, so too must the example 
be true. For suppose we say that Yisra'el is like unto a vine and a 
righteous person like unto a palm, we must either admit that there are 
such things as vines and palms, or consider any such example absurd. 
Thus, if Yisra'el is well compared to dry bones that live, then these 
bones must live — for they constituted the example — and in imitation 
of them Yisra'el will also come to life, though dead and buried like the 
bones. That is how God explains it to the prophet in this case, as if He 
were saying: 'May what I have shown you in these dry bones which I 
have supplied with flesh, spirit and life, be a lesson to you on how I 
shall revive the dried out and wasted bones of the people of Yisra'el 
and how I shall raise them out of graves where they will have lain 
for so many years all over the world’. In this way — not in the way our 
opponent explains it — does the simile match that which is being made 


1 Da Silva, in this non-biblical passage, employs the apocopated present participle 
of the Ferrara Bible and liturgy, thus giving it a scriptural or liturgical flavour. 

2 Da Silva's source is B.T. Sanhedrin 92b, but he fails to cite the dissenting opinion 
of R. Yehuda, who understands the vision of the dry bones as a parable. Many of the 
mediaeval commentators inclined to R. Yehuda's opinion, but it apparently suited da 
Silva to quote selectively. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


509 


similar. For God could just as well have shown the prophet some poor 
and despondent people, scattered over the face of the earth, and then 
caused them to be rich, happy and reunited. That would have been a 
suitable simile. But to imagine that by "corpses” we are to understand 
living people and deny the applicability of the literal meaning of the 
simile, that is an absurdity. Consider the above-quoted verse: 

The dead will not live, the departed will not rise [...] [Is. 26, 14]. 

It is equally absurd to say that God is speaking here about nations 
who are alive, but are described as dead in view of their present — or 
future — afflictions and that the prophecy means that in contrast with 
Yisra'el's fate, those other nations will never be redeemed from exile 
and captivity. Such an interpretation would, for one thing, contradict 
an explicit prophecy of Yirmeyahu: 

Yet will I bring back again the captivity of Mo'ab and of 'Amon and 

of ‘Elam [cf. Jer. 48, 47; 49: 6, 39]. 

These peoples, at any rate, were not destined to permanent captivity 
and therefore could not be considered as if they were dead, i.e., in his 
sense of the word, never more to return to their former state. 3 So his 
far-fetched explanation cannot be applied to the verse: 

The dead will not live, the departed will not rise [...] [Is. 26, 14] 

for they did return and did rise. Moreover, why employ a parable on 
a matter which God so clearly enunciates in Yirmiyahu: 

[...] for of all the nations will I make an end [...] [Jer. 46, 28]? 4 


3 Is da Silva reading into da Costa's commentary on Is. 26, 14 an outright condem¬ 
nation to oblivion of all non-Israelite nations? The scriptural context, however, speaks 
specifically of Israel's oppressors; cf. Is. 26, 13. 

4* This argument is presented by da Silva as a reinforcement of his previous one, 
whereas in reality the two are mutually exclusive. The first one asserts that da Costa's 
explanation denies a promise of restoration to gentile nations. This second argument 
of da Silva's would fault da Costa for using the Isaiah verse as the source for an alleged 
prediction of doom for all nations, when Jer. 46, 28 ought to be regarded as that source. 
So this second argument of his also ignores the prediction of the restoration of Elam, 
Moab, etc. Da Silva would evidently like to have his cake and eat it. 



510 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Therefore, of necessity, the verse: 

The dead will not live, the departed will not rise [...] [Is. 26, 14] 
must be literally interpreted. 

Let us now analyse phrase by phrase the true meaning of 
Yesa c yahu's words "Thy dead shall live, as my corpse shall they arise; 
awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust, for a dew of greens is thy 
dew and the earth shall cast out the departed” [Is. 26, 19]. 

Thy dead shall live [...] [Is. 26, 19]: 

These words apply to the time of Yisra'el's salvation, because then 
will God resuscitate the dead, after having redeemed and saved His 
people from its captivities. In the same vein Daniyel foretells: 

And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth shall rise [...] 

[Dan. 12, 2] 

and of that time does the prophet speak, as if to say: 'then will your 
dead live, and by emphasizing "Your” he clearly designates the 
righteous, for they belong to God, Whom he was addressing. 

[...] as my corpse shall they arise [...] [Is. 26, 19]: 

These words apply to the time of Yisra'el's salvation, because then 
will God resuscitate the dead, after having redeemed and saved His 
people from its captivities. In the same vein Daniyel foretells: 

[...] arise and sing, ye that dwell in the dust [...] [Is. 26, 19]: 

These words will be addressed by one resurrected person to another 
or, alternatively, a voice from heaven will call out to them: 

[...] awake [...] for a dew of greens is thy dew [...] [Is. 26, 19] 

which may be interpreted parabolically as follows: f Just as the dew is 
vital, and beneficial to vegetation — causing it to sprout from the 


5 This interpretation hangs on the conjunction "as”, which is absent from the 
Hebrew text. The Ferrara translation, used by da Silva, supplies como in parentheses, 
yet da Silva ignores those parentheses. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


511 


earth — and gives new life to dry grass, so too Your dew, 0 Lord, will 
cause the dead — though they be reduced to dry bones — to live again 
and to leap from the earth which will cast them out. That is precisely 
what is meant by: 

[...] and the earth shall cast out the departed [Is. 26, 19]. 

Now the earlier verse addressed to the nations, which begins: 
The dead will not live, the departed will not rise [...] [Is. 26, 14] 

needs little explanation, for it quite obviously means that they will 
remain under the earth, annihilated forever, without so much as a 
memory of them surviving, whereas Yisra'el, resurrected, will not only 
enjoy divine bliss, but God Himself will be proud of them. That is the 
meaning of the verse which immediately follows: 

Thou hast done more for the nation, 'Adonai, Thou hast done more for 
the nation. Thou hast glorified Thyself [...] [Is. 26, 15]. 

I shall not comment on my opponent's interpretation of the chapter 
from Iyob [19], because I do not have one of my own. So let him explain 
these verses as he pleases and make as many tedious speeches as he 
likes, furnishing synonyms for every word he believes to be hitherto 
misunderstood. But just so that he may realize his failings, I shall 
teach him to construe the first verse he cites, where he made a bad 
mistake. He ought to be ashamed of his inability to draw from the 
limpid source; due, of course, to his refusal to study the Holy Tongue, 
and his consequent reliance on the erroneous Vulgate, which renders 
verse 25 as follows: 

Because I know that my Redeemer lives and on the last day I shall arise 
from the earth [Scio enim quod Redemptor meus vivat et in novissimo 
de terra surrecturus sim] [Job 19, 25]. 

The Hebrew says nothing of the kind. It does not speak in the first 
person ("I shall rise”), because that would be ' aqum , with an ' alef . 
It speaks in the third person, using yaqum with a yod. Our own 
"Vulgate” 6 correctly renders: 

[...] and last (ve-’aharon: y postrero) upon dust shall rise [Job 19, 25]. 


6 I.e., the Spanish translation published at Ferrara in 1553. 



512 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


So Iyob does not say about himself that he will rise, but by "last 
shall rise upon dust” he means to make the word postrero an attribute 
or a qualification of God, affirming that He (God) will rise. Here we 
see how many errors spring from ignorance of the Holy Tongue. He 
is unable to follow the Hebrew verity, which does not allow of the 
translation "the last day” for postrero, as the Latin versions provide. 
Nor does the Hebrew allow for the interpretation of this word as "the 
final end of Iyob's afflictions,” as this audacious adversary claims. 
Actually, he respects no one, for while he takes from the Vulgate, which 
is the only Bible he knows, the erroneous substitution of the first person 
for the third, he rejects that same Vulgate's somewhat more plausible 
rendering "the last day,” just in order to pursue his rampant fantasies. 

The verse should therefore be read: 

I know that my Redeemer liveth, and Last will rise upon the dust 
[Job 19, 25]. 

Iyob is acknowledging that there is one eternal, living and stead¬ 
fast Creator, from Whom he expects to receive rewards, because 
he recognizes His power and mercy. He knows that God said about 
Himself: 


[...] I am the First, I also am Last [Is. 48, 12]. 

This is why, after proclaiming that God redeems from anguish those 
who wait upon His mercies, Iyob now proclaims another article of faith: 

[...] and Last will rise [...] [Job 19, 25] 

as if to say: 'God who is infinite, without beginning or end, calls 
Himself and is First and Last. He will arise to judge all the earth. 
It is from Him — Who in faithfullness, justice and power is infinite — 
that I await the mercies and rewards enumerated further on’. Iyob 
then concludes that the Lord, Blessed be He, will arise in the way 
Scripture speaks: 

[...] Rise up, Lord, and let Thy enemies be scattered [...] [Nm. 10, 35] 


and: 


Arise unto our help [...] [Ps. 44, 27]. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


513 


What our adversary says about the word postrero — that it 
indicates something that is to take place within a short time — shows 
how little knowledge he has of languages and grammar, because 
postrero in its absolute sense, without any adjunct, must needs indicate 
that something is to come at the very end, that nothing is to come after 
it. It is only when the Hebrew word ' aharon {postrero or postrimeria) 
is used possessively with pronouns (mine, your, his) — as in the verses 
he adduces ("thy latter end" [Dt. 8, 16]; "Iyob's latter end" [Job 42, 12]) 
that it could refer to something that is to take place within a short time, 
that is, relatively short, for Iyob after his afflictions ended lived another 
140 years. 

All this, however, bears no relationship to ' aharon {postrero ) taken 
absolutely, which means the very end of everything. That, in fact, is 
how the Latin versions render it here, by the superlative in novissimo 
("on the very last day"). But the truth of the matter is that this word 
designates none other than God, as I have stated, "Who is First and 
Last." In the same way as He created the world at the beginning, He 
will judge it at the end. And that is how Iyob understood it: 

[...] and Last {i.e., God) will rise over dust [Job 19, 25] 

wherein "dust" is to be understood as humanity, as Scripture says: "for 
thou art dust" [Gn. 3, 19]. 


Chapter 23 

Showing the Canonicity of the Book of Daniyel, 
Against the Insolence of the Adversary, Who Denies It 


Our adversary goes on to say: 

And now, finally, we must deal with what it says in the book entitled 
Daniyel [12, 2]: "And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth 
shall awake, some to everlasting life [...]’’ and elsewhere: "But thou go 
to the end and rest and be in thy lot at the end of the days” [Dan. 12, 13]. 
This book of Daniyel is rejected by the jews called Sadducees and this 
fact alone should suffice to deprive a book of its credibility. (As we have 
said, very little faith can be placed in the unconfirmed testimony of 
the Pharisees, seeing how these men made it their business — or their 
madness — to change words, modify, twist and misinterpret Scripture 
in order to confirm the confused figments of their imagination.) In this 
case, the book's content reveals it to be nothing but a product of 



514 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Pharisaic ideology, contrary to that of the Law. It masquerades as 
prophecy, the better to fool the people by lending authority to its 
authors' false teaching. The lack of truth of the adduced passages may 
be demonstrated as follows: the first one says that many will be 
resuscitated, but not all. Now, if resurrection were intrinsic to the 
human condition, the whole of humanity would be destined for it; 
some, albeit, resurrected to enjoy felicity, others to face humiliation 
— depending on their deserts. Seeing, however, that the Pharisees 
preach and claim that resurrection is not universal but only selective 
and that souls are not all immortal but one yeah and one nay, it becomes 
clear that the above-cited scriptural passage was fabricated to accom¬ 
modate their erroneous doctrine. The same may be seen in the last- 
cited verse, in as much as it says that Daniyel would enjoy his lot and 
be in it at the end of days. For the Pharisees teach that when the masiah 
comes, the risen dead will each of them possess his inheritance in the 
land of Yisra'el. To prove this utter insanity they resort to fabricating 
scripture. There are other things in the book of Daniyel which bear 
a Pharisaic hallmark. Here, for the first time, do we find angels called 
by names of which previously we had not been informed, either by the 
Law or by other books. In fact, the whole presentation and style reveals 
it to be a fabrication. But if one finds it hard to believe that anyone 
would have dared to produce pseudepigraphic writings, let him ask 
himself who wrote the book of Judith and invented her story? Who 
the third and fourth Ezra? Who the Book of Wisdom and many others 
needless to enumerate? In fact we even have to include the book of 
Esther in this list. In short, there is no lack of sham authors, prophets 
and visionaries: for human malice knows no bounds. Warnings were 
given us in the Law, intended to make us wary. He who cleaves to its 
truth will escape all error. Let me just reiterate that the novel teaching 
found in the book of Daniyel runs contrary to the teaching of the Law 
and contrary to all books which follow in the Law's footsteps. Therefore 
we shall not and need not pay it the slightest heed. Having now shown 
that man is every bit mortal (there was really little need to demonstrate 
what is so obvious), and that he is not endowed with another life to 
live, let us examine the difficulties and evils which ensue from the 
erroneous contrary position. 


The Book of Daniyel is truly prophetic and authentic and vouched 
for by authority and reason. By authority — for Dani'el does not tell 
us merely that prophecy came to him, as do the other prophets concer¬ 
ning their prophecy, but he also invokes witnesses: 


And I, Daniyel, alone saw this vision, and the men that were with me 
did not see the vision; but a great terror fell upon them, and they fled 
to hide themselves [Dan. 10, 7] 


i It is unclear how da Silva hoped to convince one who was sceptical about the 
whole book of Daniel by means of evidence from within that very book. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


515 


And tradition has it that these men were Haggai, Zekarya and 
Mal'aki, who afterwards prophesied, as c Ezra tells us in Chapter 5. 2 
The holy and learned men of the Great Synagogue, in whose Council 
sat the prophets c Ezra, Haggai and Zekarya, included Daniyel among 
the 24 approved canonical books which we recognize, believe in and 
follow. This decision was in its turn ratified by the general consent of 
the entire Holy Congregation of Yisra'el, which received the Book of 
Daniyel and has recognized its canonicity until this very day and will 
continue to do so until the end of the world. To these considerations 
may be added that the book was written at a time when prophets 
— such as the three aforementioned — were the means of communica¬ 
tion between God and human beings, by a man whose erudition and 
saintliness were generally recognized. To the high reputation of Daniyel, 
and the esteem in which he was held, the prophet Yehezqel bears 
witness: 

And if there be these three men in the midst of it, Noah, Dani'el and 

Iyob, these with their righteousness will save their soul, saith ’Adonai 

[Ezek. 14, 14] 3 . 

Now how can one countenance the obduracy and perversity of a 
man who denies all this, simply because — as he claims — the 
Sadducees denied it? I for one do not believe the Sadducees denied the 
authenticity of the Book of Daniyel, nor does he furnish any proof for 
this claim of his. But whether or not they denied it is of little conse¬ 
quence, because the Sadducees were founded by that depraved 
individual, their eponymous Sadok, who was moved by passionate 
hatred and insubordination to abandon his master Antigonus and who, 
surrounding himself with a gang of dissolutes, stirred them up by his 
false preaching against the Pharisees. The latter were saintly scholars, 
separated from the customs and practices of the common people and 
therefore called perusim (Pharisees), which means "separate.” Their 
doctrine was always sound, faithful and based on genuine traditions 
and, as such> was accepted and respected throughout history. The 
abominable doctrine of the Sadducees, on the other hand, was rejected 
soon enough, totally exploded and forgotten and for all we know extinct. 
Its promulgators are cursed and made out to be informers, heretics, 


2 For Haggai and Zechariah, cf. Ezra 5, 1. 

3 It is not clear what bearing this quotation has on the authenticity of the book 
under discussion. Ezekiel as well as the author of the Book of Daniel were no doubt 
convinced of one Daniel’s saintliness; da Costa had only questioned the attribution of 
the book, not the reputation of the historical hero of that name. 



516 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


and renegades. It is in respect to them that at the time of Raban 
Gamaliel the following paragraph was added to the c amida: 

May renegades find no hope, and all heretics and all traducers swiftly 
disappear [...] 

so that in the whole world and by the mouth of all Yisra'el they may 
be cursed three times a day, as is now done. 4 

When our opponent triumphantly waves in our face his interpreta¬ 
tion of two verses from the Book of Daniyel, he is up to his old tricks. 
The first of the two verses reads: 

And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some 
to everlasting life, and some to disgrace and everlasting contempt 
[Dan. 12, 2]. 

The vain commentator comes up with this chimera: "if resurrec¬ 
tion were intrinsic to the human condition, the whole of humanity would 
be destined for it.” Just as an aside, let it be noted how he never misses 
a chance to preach on the workings of divine justice, and its system 
of rewards and punishments, nor does he fail to imply that we are 
morally blind and thus unable to perceive anything more than outward 
trappings or to enter into the secret deliberations of the divinity. He 
has such confidence in his knowledge, he is so sure of his ability to deter¬ 
mine what God does with souls, that, rather than renounce his obstinate 
opinion, he prefers to deny an approved and accepted prophetic book. 
I am moreover convinced that henceforth whenever he finds himself 
in a quandary, he will not hesitate to deny any canonical book that might 
contradict him. Thus he is worse than the renegades. For they adopt 
Islam out of some selfish motive or for gain and are sorry soon after, 
repent and become contrite. But people like him who abandon the way 
of truth out of sheer arrogance and stubbornness are just about 
hopeless cases and beyond help. 

But pray tell me: if resurrection were to take place, why in the 
world should it be general? Why should those masses of humanity who 


4 The insertion in the c amida of a prayer for the perdition of heretics is ascribed 
to Raban Gamaliel II (end of first century) and was probably aimed at the Judeo-Christian 
heresy of the time, when Sadduceism was in eclipse. Cf. George F. Moore, 'The Defini¬ 
tion of the Jewish Canon and the Repudiation of Christian Scriptures,” Essays in Modem 
Theology and Related Subjects Gathered and Published as a Testimonial to C. A. Briggs , 
New York, 1911, 99-125: 111-112. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


517 


neither favoured nor ill-treated Yisra'el or were perhaps even unaware 
of Yisra'el's very existence, be raised from the grave? It stands to 
reason, on the other hand, that some of those who persecuted Yisra'el 
should come back to be exposed to opprobrium and infamy and to 
undergo punishment. Indeed it would be contrary to reason to suppose 
that a Nebukadnezar, an Antiochus, a Titus, and all the rest of those 
tyrants, Inquisitors and persecutors who murdered, despoiled and 
devastated Yisra'el and yet reached the end of their normal life-span 
satiated with worldly gratification, should go scot-free in the spiritual 
realm. Reason and justice demand that, in addition to the punishment 
undergone by their souls — which is hidden from the living — a time 
should come when they re-enter bodies for a while to receive a well- 
publicized punishment in full gaze of that people which suffered at their 
hands here on earth. True justice requires that these tyrannical 
persecutors be resuscitated to undergo infamy, insult and opprobrium 
and that the persecuted and the righteous return to be granted honours 
and a full life. As the prophet says: 

Thy dead shall live [...] [Is. 26, 19] 

and, as we said before, by calling them "God's dead” the prophet clearly 
showed that he meant the righteous. 

We now turn to our opponent's comment on the last verse of the 
Book of Daniyel [’’But thou go to the end and rest and be in thy lot at 
the end of the days”]. His claim to the effect that the Pharisees teach 
that "when the masiah comes the risen dead will each of them possess 
his inheritance in the land of Yisra'el” is a fabrication: there is no such 
teaching among us. 5 It should not surprise us, however, that this poor 
ignoramus who goes around begging for information should regularly 
get the wrong end of the stick. In this case he has confused the time 
of resurrection with that of the messianic era. The two are, in fact, quite 
different. We believe that at the time of the masiah the various 
captivities will come to an end, the people of Yisra'el will enter the Holy 
Land to inherit and possess it, will have their own sovereign State and 
will rule over other nations. 6 Scripture is replete with such predic¬ 
tions, for instance: 

That then ’Adonai thy God will restore thy captivity [...] And 'Adonai 

thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed and 


5 Here da Silva openly and explicitly identifies himself with the Pharisees. 

6 The non-Scriptural idea here expressed (that jews will reign over other nations 
in messianic times) is by no means an invention of da Silva. Cf. Jerome on Is. 35, 10 (cited 



518 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


thou shalt possess it and He will do thee good and multiply thee above 
thy fathers [Dt. 30: 3, 5] 7 . 

Concerning resurrection, however, and its consequences: 

[...] no eye has seen it, O God, besides Thee [...] [Is. 64, 3] 

nor has any understanding penetrated it, nor did any prophet or 
sage discourse upon matters so occult. Thus the last verse in Daniyel: 

But thou go to the end and rest and arise to thy lot at the end of the days 

speaks neither of inheriting the Land, nor of the days of the masiah, 
but of the end of the world. Moreover, the Hebrew, if taken literally, 
does not say "at the end of the days,” but "at the end of the right,” by 
which is to be understood the compassion and mercy which God will 
show to the dead at the end of days. 8 And this is what is meant by 
what Daniyel is told: 'At the end of your days you will repose, that is, 
you will enjoy bliss in the company of the righteous, for that is your 
lot. 9 And at the end of days you will arise (that is, from your tomb) to 
enjoy that same bliss and glory in body as well as soul, in accordance 
with what is written earlier, that "many of those that sleep in the dust 
of the earth shall awake to everlasting life” [cf. Dan. 12, 2]. 

What guarantees the authenticity of the book and prophecy of 
Daniyel is its incorporation into the canon of 24 books which we possess, 


by R. L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, Berkeley, 1983, 73). The same misconcep¬ 
tion was entertained by Sabbatai Sebi in 1665-1666. Cf. G. Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, The 
Mystical Messiah, Princeton, 1973, 426-441. 

7 This passage does not, of course, predict Israel's domination over other peoples; 
nor does any other Scriptural passage. It is extraordinary that da Silva should have 
imagined to find such a prediction in this verse. 

8 The last word of the Book of Daniel is hayamin, meaning "the days.” Normally 
this word would end in a mem: hayamim, not with a nun, as it does here: hayamin. 
As it stands, this word is homonymous with a Hebrew word meaning "the right hand.” 
However, in Hebrew, unlike in most languages of Western Europe, the word for "right” 
(the antonym of left) is not identical with the word for "right” (the antonym of wrong). 
Incredibly, da Silva claims for the Hebrew word yamin both meanings of the Spanish 
word derechal 

9 Da Silva's paraphrase makes the word "lot” refer to the repose of the righteous 
that extends from death until resurrection, an interpretation impossible to square with 
the Scriptural text, which reads "and thou shalt rise to thy lot,” i.e., enjoyment of a "lot” 
which can only be subsequent to a "rising.” 



. SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREA TISE 


519 


believe in and follow. What is more, when the 70 scholars translated 
those books, they were illuminated by the divine spirit. Under that 
inspiration — in every one of those books including Daniyel — they 
introduced certain changes and glosses they believed necessary, which 
neither Yisra'el nor the gentiles ever called into question. 10 

Thus it has been demonstrated that the Book of Daniyel is pro¬ 
phetic and genuine and that everything alleged to the contrary is false, 
vain and ridiculous, as it is to cast doubt on its authenticity just 
because it includes angels 1 names which are not found in other books. 
For if the angels answer to names, which God imparted to them — in 
the same way as He imparts names to stars and constellations 11 — 
what objection could there be to Daniyel calling them by those names 
or, conversely, why should he have been obliged to pass over them 
in silence, as did the other books of the Bible who had no need to 
name them? 

To derive from that silence in the other books the theory that the 
angels have no names, is another sample of the adversary's abysmal 
ignorance. Does he not know that Ya c aqob after fighting with the 
angel asked him for his name? 

And Ya c aqob asked him and said: Tell me now thy name’; and he said: 

'Wherefore is it that thou dost ask for my name?’ [Gn. 32, 30]. 

So there it is: angels have names! That angel who appeared to 
Yehosua c , though he did not reveal his personal name, did identify 
himself by his appellative name, saying: 

I am a captain of the host of 'Adonai [Jos. 5, 14]. 12 


10 The. Talmud indeed speaks of divine guidance in reference to a Greek version 
of the Pentateuch produced by 72 elders but says nothing of a simlarly inspired version 
of the rest of Scripture. Cf. B.T. Megilla 9a. 

11 Cf. Is. 40, 26; Ps. 147,4; but there is nothing in Scripture about names being 
imparted to angels. 

12 This argument hardly answers da Costa's observation on the uniqueness to the 
book of Daniel of angelic proper names. Cf. Dan. 12, 1, where an angel is identified by 
both an appellative and a personal name. 



520 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Chapter 24 

Concerning the Audacity of our Adversary who, 
Despite his Ignorance, Holds Forth on Metempsychosis 


He goes on to say: 


Chapter 25 1 

Containing the Errors and Evils that Ensue 
from Believing the Soul to be Immortal. 

Since one absurdity leads to another and one error gives birth to many, 
this erroneous opinion or, rather, delusion, concerning the immortality 
of the soul has such numerous offspring that it will not be easy to 
exhibit them all. The Pharisees who only selectively grant immortality 
— eternal bliss and also everlasting suffering —, in order not to 
condemn to damnation too readily, claimed and continue to claim that 
if, while in the body, a soul commits actions meriting damnation (or 
omits to perform a commandment), God may send it back to earth and 
house it in another body and again in a third body, until it has earned 
(as they say) the bread that it is to eat in heaven. They also invented 
a place called purgatory where the souls of those who were middling 
good could purge their faults. From there, withal, God may exile them 
time and again to the bodies of animals (animals with bachelors' degrees 
no doubt), and this too for their purgation. It is precisely because 
a human soul may find itself in a cow that, when it is to be slaughtered, 
care must be taken to minimize its pain. (That animals should be 
slaughtered with compassion is proper and righteous, but not for that 
reason.) If none of these remedies should suffice, and the soul is so 
wicked that it deserves damnation, God sends it to the place of eternal 
torments. That is its final destination and thus is transformed the glory 
which that soul had once possessed in heaven where it dwelled, as they 
say, under the Divine throne. What a stupid soul, not to have clung on 
and to have allowed itself to be cast into this world! Since the Law is 
silent on all such matters, one wonders just how these people came 
by their information, and on what these interpreters of Divine justice 
base their mystifications which inspire amazement in ordinary folk who 
listen to them open-mouthed. 


I.e., Chapter 3 in da Costa's extant book. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


521 


Though on the one hand this bogus glossator causes anger and 
indignation because of the liberties he takes and the insolence with 
which he speaks, on the other hand pity is aroused by his ignorance 
and blindness. It is these defects that compel him to consult — even 
on momentous issues — ridiculous and vain persons who misinform 
him, as they did concerning the matter at hand: gilgul, or metemp¬ 
sychosis. This would not have happened to him had he tried to obtain 
information from truly learned and God-fearing men, because then he 
would have been apprised that those austere and saintly gentlemen, 
our masters, who through their wisdom and saintliness deserved to be 
receptacles of true traditions, when they came to discuss lofty and 
esoteric matters, decided that these would be treated confidentially and 
knowledge of them restricted to themselves. Indeed, some of them went 
even further and did not consent to more than two or three selected 
and approved scholars at a time being initiated into these mysteries. 
Only in this manner did they allow ma c ase merkava and ma c ase beresit 
("matters of the chariot” and "matters of creation”) to be discussed, 
which comprise ways and means of investigating and approaching the 
divine essence. This they called pardes ("enclosed garden”), which only 
a few were privileged to enter. The same conditions applied to discus¬ 
sions of gilgul (metempsychosis). They wished to restrict speculation 
concerning such esoteric matters to those who could discuss and 
comprehend them without giving rise to scandal or confusion, making 
sure to conceal them from the masses. But in the course of our 
miserable captivities, taking advantage of the disappearance of a 
supreme authority, some vainglorious individuals, motivated by an 
excess of curiosity or rashness, penetrated this most precious of all 
gardens and, leaving wide open its main gates, rendered it accessible 
to all and sundry, and thus we have sunk to the sad state in which we 
now find ourselves. Due to the lightheadedness of those who spread 
the information and the ignorance of those who absorbed it, they have 
succeeded in trivializing things that used to be held sacred and reserved 
for an erudite elite. 

Affected to the quick by all this, I would do all in my power — if 
not to restore the original walls around this garden, an obvious 
impossibility — at least to stop them from crumbling. How am I to 
consent to fools stepping in where angels once feared to tread? How 
am I to tolerate, without experiencing great pain, the boundless 
arrogance of those who presume to pronounce upon the way in which 
God deals with souls and other even more esoteric issues? And yet 
human beings are possessed of such limited judgement that even the 
most prudent and perspicacious cannot competently manage the 



522 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


administration of their own, their family's and their country's affairs. 
Neither historical precedent nor the consideration of what lies ahead 
seem to provide sufficient guide-lines for the right solution. 

But I turn to you — O blind and incompetent 'Uri'el! — and I beg 
you to tell me what fury has inflamed you or what poison has perturbed 
your mind and your senses for you to give credit to ignorant persons 
who are precipitating your ruin while you despise the teaching of 
scholars whose advice you could turn to good advantage. Had you but 
taken the piece of advice I gave you many years ago, you could have 
spent those years usefully by learning the Holy Tongue. At present, 
when you have so much reason for not trusting anyone and therefore 
are unwilling and unable to take advice from the living, 2 you should 
turn to what remains to us of the teaching of the departed. You need 
have no fear that they were out to deceive you or that they hated you, 
for surely they had no inkling that such an ugly monster as you would 
one day come into the world. Were you to study their writings, you 
would not claim that the Pharisees taught that human souls are turned 
into brute beasts in order to be reformed. Nor that if this transforma¬ 
tion should prove an insufficient remedy for their wickedness, they will 
be sent to eternal torments. These are all illusions through which they 
who by a hairbreadth are your superiors in knowledge — but your 
inferiors in malice — lead you astray. Were you to consult authoritative 
voices from the past, you would not hesitate to accept and believe the 
true dogma and teaching of the Pharisees, who follow the divine tradi¬ 
tions in maintaining and teaching that there is a reward and a punish¬ 
ment for souls in the world-to-come and that the souls of the just and 
the righteous will find glorious repose and eternal bliss. As 'Abigayil 
said to David: 

[...] and the soul of my lord will be bound in the bond of lives with 
'Adonai thy God [...] [ISm. 25, 29]. 

And the souls of the unrighteous and wicked will continue without 
repose, deprived of divine glory and clarity, which is the greatest 
imaginable punishment. To express it, 'Abigayil goes on to say: 

[...] and the soul of thy enemies will be hurled away as out of the middle 
of the sling [ibid.]. 


2 Da Silva seemingly allows here for da Costa's mistrust of the "establishment” 
which excommunicated and ostracized him. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


523 


But the Pharisees do not dabble in secrets of metempsychosis nor 
do they promise some souls glory and others eternal suffering; so this 
miserable beggar was again misinformed. 3 Had he but merited to 
make good use of the faculties with which God endowed him — instead 
of allowing them to degenerate — then he would not have been deceived 
into believing that the reason sehita (the jewish method of slaughtering 
poultry and cattle) is carried out so compassionately is to spare the 
human souls which may be contained in these animals. Rather would 
he have been satisfied and happy to find out the true and hidden reasons 
for sehita . Then he would not have permitted himself such sneering 
witticisms as: "animals with bachelors' degrees, no doubt!” and "what 
a stupid soul, not to have hung on!” Instead, he would have known that 
much against their will do souls come into the world, leave it again and 
give an accounting to God. So too shall the soul of this man go, willy- 
nilly, to its reckoning, however much he may protest that his soul is 
the soul of a brute animal. And what a black account it will be, unless 
he resolves in time to give a better account of himself. 


Chapter 25 

Showing, that Contrary to Our Adversary's Barbaric Opinion, 

We are Obliged to Hold Services and Memorial Prayers for the Dead 


He goes on to say: 

Out of the above-mentioned errors others develop in quick succession 
such as the reciting of prayers and supplications for the dead; the 
making of offerings on their behalf to facilitate their release from 
the torments of a fictional purgatory; countless silly superstitions 
practiced at funerals. All these things are very offensive to the true 
Law and divine worship which neither use nor need such frivolities 
but rather do reject and abhor them. 


3 If it is not the Pharisees that dabble in metempsychosis, who then are the 
"austere and saintly gentlemen” who laid down rules for the discussion of that very 
subject, as da Silva informed us above? Da Costa, at the beginning of (1624).II. 18, picks 
up da Silva's inconsistency. 



524 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


We have already stated that neither the Law, the prophets, nor the 
sages have made any clear pronouncement concerning the world- 
to-come, and even less concerning the fate of souls, because God kept 
that knowledge to Himself. God did not wish us to have more than a 
general notion, which we have already made quite clear. This notion 
is founded on the indispensable and inviolable principle of divine justice 
which demands compensation for the righteous who left this world 
without a reward and just deserts for the wicked who were not punished 
while on earth. This doctrine is so sound and infallible, that it spread 
throughout the world as if propelled by the force of natural reason and 
became common to all peoples, for all of them, however savage and 
barbaric, practise pious rites on behalf of their deceased. 

Now by saying in general terms how immense is the goodness 
stored up for the righteous, Psalm 31, verse 20 implies that, conversely, 
the suffering stored away for the wicked is also commensurate. Even 
though our sages have expressed pious and well-founded opinions 
concerning the various categories of punishments by which the souls 
undergo purification, we shall not discuss any aspect of those opinions 
with this foolhardy and stubborn perverter. No doubt he will also say 
that the view of the heavens, so superb and majestic, is solely intended 
for our delectation, and that the abode of God and of His faithful 
ministering angels who continuously serve and praise Him, is not to 
be found there. But we who profess the contrary, and maintain that 
the dominion, power, vassals and ministers of earthly kings are but a 
faint shadow of those of God's sovereign majesty in heaven, accom¬ 
panied, feared and loved by the entire angelic host, find it quite 
appropriate that into that sacred company should enter the souls of 
the righteous, having been cleansed and purified of their sins by Him 
Whose power and knowledge are incomprehensible and unfathomable. 

Who then will show himself so unjust and unqualified a judge of 
the matter at hand as to reprove and condemn the rites practised by 
Yisra'el on behalf of its departed? Who but an uncouth and malicious 
scoffer would deny that God knows how to channel and guide its orisons 
and offerings to the addressee? To whom can appear as something evil 
the assiduous solicitude that we take to shroud corpses with cleanliness, 
to expedite their burial, to succour their souls by means of supplicatory 
prayers and by giving charity — which we believe to be propitious to 
them? Or to whom can any of this not appear to be a boon? "Countless 
silly superstitions practised at their funerals in contradiction to the 
Law”? We do not know of such. It would have helped had he listed the 
practices he considers abusive for he could then have been provided 
with their correct reasons or shown to be misinformed, as the case may 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


525 


be. He apparently does not know of the funerary rites for kings prac¬ 
tised in Yisra'el, as was done for the ancestors of Yehoram: 

[...] and his people made no burning for him like the burning for his 
fathers [2Chr. 21, 19]. 

Need I mention the pains taken by 'Abraham to secure "the cave of 
the doubling” to bury Sara and to keep it as a possession [Gn. 23, 19-20]? 
Ya c aqob's charging Yosef to bury him in the Holy Land [Gn. 50, 5]? 1 
I ask: what was the sense of all these precautions? The weeping for 
Ya c aqob 70 days in Egypt, what was it based on? To go and bury him 
with such an honourable and dignified suite and Yosef then observing 
for him seven days of evel [mourning]; for what purpose? Yosef 
entreating his brothers to carry his bones with them out of Egypt; what 
was the use? Mose busying himself so assiduously with this charge at 
a time when he had so many other important preoccupations and, 
finally, taking with him some withered, dried out bones; what mystery 
was behind all this? 2 Why look for another, when the Law discloses 
it? For it proclaims the great advantage and superiority of the Holy 
Land, when it states: 

[...] and its soil will forgive its people [Dt. 32, 43]. 3 

Moreover, God Himself shows that He takes a special interest in 
the burial of the righteous, to the extent that He buried Mose by His 


1 Cf. Gn. 47, 29-30, whence it would appear that Ya c aqob's wish was to be buried 
alongide his kinsfolk, not simply within the confines of Canaan. 

2 Ex. 13, 19 makes it clear that Moses occupied himself with the remains of Joseph 
in fulfilment of an oath. 

3 Hebrew: ve-kiper 'admato c amo (= "and He will atone for His people and His 
land” or "and He will atone for His people’s land”). The Hebrew verb ve-kiper is in the 
masculine and in the context must refer to God; under no circumstances can its subject 
be the word \adama ("land”) which is a feminine noun. Yet the B.T. (Ketubot 11 la) suggests 
the grammatically impossible interpretation "and His land makes expiation for His 
people” in order to derive the doctrine that "burial in the sacred soil cleanses of sin and 
dispenses atonement.” This doctrine gained popularity among Portuguese New Chris¬ 
tians of the 16th and 17th centuries because it offered a means of wiping their slate clean 
of their Christian past. Da Silva, however, presents the Talmudic paraphrase of Dt. 32,43 
as though it were Scripture. True, the Ferrara translation's literalism: y perdonara su 
tierra su pueblo is ambiguous, but da Silva removes all ambiguity by adding the preposi¬ 
tion a: y perdonara su tierra a su pueblo to make the verse serve his cause. 



526 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


own hand [Dt. 34, 6] and did not consent that the remains of 'Elisa c be 
touched by a sinner's corpse: 

[...] and as the man went and touched the bones of Elisa c he revived 
and rose up on his feet [2Kgs. 13, 21] 4 . 

Need I dwell on what we read and know of kings, prophets and 
grandees of Yisra'el, that all of them at the time of their death were 
much concerned about their graves? Or the great piety with which the 
living everywhere busy themselves in carrying out and fulfilling the 
last wishes of the deceased? Surely, great is the diabolical determina¬ 
tion and odious the impudence of he who dares to assert that all of this 
(and much more, which we pass over for the sake of brevity) is nought 
but falsehood and vanity. 

Let us sum it all up with the following words of the Law: 

Ye are the children of 'Adonai your God; do not cut yourselves nor make 
any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For a holy people to 
'Adonai your God art thou and of thee hath 'Adonai made choice to 
be unto Himself a precious people more so than all the peoples that 
are upon the face of the earth [Dt. 14, 1-2]. 

God exhorts the living not to overdo the mourning ceremonies, 
because both the living and the dead are His children and peculiar 
treasure. How are we to understand these titles seemingly suggesting 
great privileges? Surely they can only apply to the bliss of the world- 
to-come, since this world is a vale of tears? Who but one whose 
understanding is totally corrupt and depraved, will dare to claim that 
Yisra'ePs dead come to an end without any further memory of them 
subsisting? For in this world the other peoples possess and enjoy all 
its goodness, and Yisra'el quite the opposite. 


4 There is no mention of a sinner in this story. Da Silva's reading of it is only 
comprehensible in the light of a disputed aggadic interpretation. Cf. B.T. Sanhedrin 47a. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


527 


Chapter 26 

Showing that Jews are Obliged to Humble and Abase Themselves 
and Even to Give up their Lives for the Sanctification of God's Name 


Our adversary goes on to say: 

Mischief is the inevitable corollary of error, and this unfounded belief 
in immortality is no exception, in so far as it too has created havoc 
among its adherents. For in the expectation of greater [goods or greater] 
evils in the hereafter, they despise the goods and evils of this world. 
Some of them even went so far as to create new orders and rules of 
life, imposing on their bodies self-mortification not demanded by the 
Law and not adopted by its righteous followers. They dwelt in the 
wilderness, ate poorly, and dressed worse and, maddest of all, esteemed 
celibacy a holier and more religious state than that of legitimate 
matrimony, divinely and naturally instituted. Others stupidly offered 
their souls to cruel martyrdom. Vainly and without cause these wasteful 
and foolish people surrendered and discarded that life so highly valued 
by the ancient patriarchs. Crazed as a result of the false hopes they 
entertain and the vows which they take without consulting God, they 
do not know what they are looking for; and, being unappreciative of 
God's gift to them of the blessings of this life, they hardly merit leave 
to enjoy them. 

Although this section seems to be directed at non-jews, specifically 
the papists who established monastic orders and, in violation of divine 
and natural law, condemned matrimony, we will respond to the part 
which also concerns us, where he censors the subjection of the body 
to rigours, and calls "madness” the constancy which impels one to give 
up one's life for the sake of God. On both these points he is in error 
as regards the Law and the examples given us by holy men doing 
penance. As far as the first point is concerned, such rigours within limits 
are legitimate, necessary and required by God for penitence and 
satisfaction of sins. In the Law God commands us to afflict our souls 
[Nm. 29, 7]. As to the other books of the Bible: how can anyone be 
unaware of king David's manifold fasts and vigils, of all the tears he 
shed, hoping that God would forgive him the sin which he had before 
him continually [cf. Ps. 51, 5]? Indeed it was thanks to these austerities 
that God did forgive him. Who has not read of king 'Ahab's penitence, 
that he rent his clothes, fasted and put on sackcloth and hairshirt [lKgs. 



528 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


21, 27]? Thanks to these meritorious actions God had mercy on him and 
testified to His acceptance of 'Ahab's penance: 

Hast thou seen how 'Ahab hath humbled himself before me? [...] 
[lKgs. 21, 29]. 

Who does not know of the contrition of the inhabitants of Nineveh 
and the abstinences they practiced after the prophet Yona had pro¬ 
claimed the city's destruction, and that God had mercy on it? As to the 
second point, the Law commands us to love God with all our soul 
[Dt. 6, 5], which amounts to saying that we must be willing to surrender 
our very lives for His honour. The children of Yisra'el look upon such 
sacrifice as a part of their duty in God's service. 

But for Thy sake are we slain all the day; we are counted as flocks for 
slaughter [Ps. 44, 23] 

and it would be an empty claim on their part if it were the wrong thing 
to do and if it were better to blaspheme and commit idolatry in order 
to preserve one's life than to give it up for the sanctification of God's 
name. 

Yesa c yahu, referring to the people, says: 

Oppressed and taunted but still not opening its mouth; like a lamb led 
to slaughter [...] [Is. 53, 7] 1 

and yet God approves his conduct and will reward him for it. 
Yesa c yahu earlier on evinces the insults and danger to which he did 
not hesitate to expose himself for the love of God: 

My body I gave up to the smiters and my cheeks to those that plucked 
off the hair; my face I hid not from abuse and spitting [Is. 50, 6]. 

One could cite infinite examples, all to the same purpose, but we 
shall make do with those of 'Abraham and Yishaq, to show that while 
the patriarchs did esteem and desire life, it was to offer and surrender 
it to the honour and service of their Creator, which for human beings 


l Although ancient jewish tradition identifies the "suffering servant” with the 
Messiah (in which case "its” should be rendered "his” in English, though in Spanish su 
covers both), medieval jewish apologists sometimes found it expedient to identify him 
with the people of Israel. It is their interpretation which is adopted here by da Silva. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


529 


is the highest and most praiseworthy observance of God's Law. Human 
beings who do not feel this way would have been better off never to 
have received and possessed life. Any opponent of this true doctrine 
— which is confirmed in the Law and by authoritative sages — clearly 
approves and proclaims the infamous and intemperate motto of the 
Epicureans: "Let us eat and let us drink, for tomorrow we shall die.” 


Chapter 27 

Showing the Benefits that Ensue from Hope in an Afterlife, 
Refuting our Ignorant Adversary 


Our adversary goes on to say: 

No good whatsoever can result from this false opinion. When they say 
that without the expectation of greater goods or evils in the hereafter, 
people would not fear God but would all do as they pleased, they are 
talking nonsense. The dread of the gallows which the thief sees before 
his eyes exceeds the fear of hell which he cannot see: threatened with 
punishment which is doubtful or far-off, he simply replies that one has 
to eat just the same. With here-and-now punishments things are quite 
different. If someone about to commit murder were to be reminded 
that murderers are beheaded, surely he would desist. And if he be 
hardened to the extent that the thought of immediate execution holds 
no terror for him, the fear of a contingent punishment, from which 
escape may always seem possible, would be far less of a deterrent. 
Similarly the divine judgements and chastisements in this world are 
much more effective than threats concerning a future, unknown life. 
A soldier in war, where loss is more certain than gain, serves a lord 
for a pay so scanty that he can barely live on it. Will a man not better 
serve his own God, Whom he is obliged to serve, and Who pays 
munificently a service so easy that it seems hardly any service at all? 
"And now Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to 
fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways [...]” [Dt. 10, 12]. Ways 
of righteousness, ways of justice, gentle and easy ways, which those 
who are not fascinated by torture love and desire; and on which [only] 
the perverse and wicked stumble: "How have Thy words become sweet 
to my palate; more than honey to my mouth” [Ps. 119, 103]. 

There can be no doubt that the Lord (blessed be He) compensates 
the righteous much more than he chastises the wicked, for He says that 



530 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


He punishes the iniquitous up to the third and fourth generation and 
shows mercy for thousands of generations unto those that love Him 
[cf. Ex. 20, 5-6]. This being the case, it is the hope of reward — not fear 
of punishment — that predominates in the minds of those who believe 
in the world-to-come. How vile and perverse is the perception of this 
ignoble mind! It would impose limits on the infinite by restricting the 
purpose of the world-to-come to inspiring the living with fear and, what 
is more, applying that purpose and that fear only to thieving miscreants 
for whom here-and-now punishments hold no fright, whereas in reality 
this belief in the hereafter is far more concerned with the reward of 
the righteous than with the punishment of the wicked. So then why can 
there not result from it the benefit of consoling and comforting the 
afflicted in their troubles? Why can it not help to repress the evil 
thoughts and works of those who, even though they be not righteous, 
yet are not completely corrupt? Why should it not lead those who are 
ruled by the fear of God to identify with those who are imbued with 
His love, bringing all to cleave unto Him? Is this not the ultimate aim 
of love, the union of the lover and his beloved? 

In conclusion, I ask: who is to oblige us to discover finite aims in 
a matter of infinity that God wished to keep concealed from us? As it 
is written: 

How great is Thy goodness which Thou hast hidden for those that fear 

Thee [...] [Ps. 31, 20] 

a verse which can in no way be understood to refer to this-worldly 
benefits, for these are not merely obvious and manifest, but quite 
common and, as experience shows, are sometimes lavished also on the 
godless. 


Chapter 28 

Concerning the Perdition that Awaits Him who Regularly 
and Obstinately Clings to Wrongheaded Opinions 


Our adversary goes on to say: 

For a time I found myself in the same darkness in which I know many 
to dwell, perplexed and assailed by doubts produced by false writings 
and the teachings of monstrous men. Certainty eluded me and out of 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


531 


reach seemed the means to attain that eternal life, which I had been 
indoctrinated to believe in as the ultimate goal of human existence. 
That eternal life I then supposed to be a matter of supreme importance 
— yet one about which I was subsequently to discover that the Law 
is completely silent. After I set out to scorn and overcome the fear of 
men — having been impelled by the love of truth and the fear of God 
in Whom I exclusively put my faith — my fortune took a completely 
new turn, because God enlightened my understanding, liberating me 
from doubts about the things that were afflicting me and putting me 
firmly on the way of truth. Everyone could see my worldly goods 
increasing by leaps and bounds. Providence watched over me in a way 
that makes those least inclined to do so acknowledge it in spite of 
themselves. So I live contentedly, realizing what my end shall be and 
cognizant of the conditions of the Law which God enjoined me to 
observe. I do not get carried away constructing castles in the air any 
more than I deceive myself with false hopes of dreamt up bliss. Nor 
do I sadden or perturb myself with the dread of awful torments. For 
the human existence which God granted me and the life he lent me 
I render thanks, considering that before I existed He owed me nothing, 
but He chose to make me a human being and not an animal. In truth, 
the most distressful and wretched time in my life was when I believed 
that eternal bliss or misery awaited man and that according to his 
works he would earn that bliss or that misery. I would surely have 
rejected without any hesitation that agonizing insecurity and been 
satisfied to live with the promise of a lesser reward, had I but known 
at that time of another option. No doubt God allows such opinions to 
exist for the torment of the conscience of those who forsake Him and 
His constant truth. From here on we desist from citing any further cases 
in which so-called Tradition abusively deviates from the truth and the 
straight path of the Law, and refrain from proceeding any further 
against our incriminated adversaries, considering the first and prin¬ 
cipal clause of our Proposition, put forth above in Chapter 7, to have 
been satisfactorily proven by the cases so far adduced. At this point 
we are going to recount some anecdotes. 

We know from experience that those who gradually accustom 
themselves to eat poison, end up by faring well on it. Whereas at 
the beginning they experience anxiety and harmful effects, after a 
while they feed on it as on natural victuals. Though it is a matter of 
philosophic and common knowledge that all people live and maintain 
themselves by what is congenial to their nature and destroy themselves 
by what is detrimental to it, in their case, that very substance which 
at the beginning of the diet they knew to be detrimental, by the end, 
thanks to habit, they believe to have become congenial and profitable. 
Such people do not even realize any longer that they are ingesting 
dangerous poison, since their organism has already assimilated the 
malignancy, like that of chronic consumptives, who are burning hot 



532 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


and feel no fever but eat and speak like healthy people until they die 

— but not from the malignancy , because they have made themselves 
immune to it. That is what happened to Mithridates, king of Pontus, 
and many others who unsuccessfully tried to kill themselves with 
poison. 

The human mind reacts in an analogous way. Its proper fare 
consists of truth and scientific knowledge, which sustain and strengthen 
it. Lies and wrong opinions corrupt and destroy it as venom does the 
body. And also like the body, the mind too, can become inured by the 
process of repeated dosage. Then, lulled into complacency, instead of 
the repugnance it would formerly have felt for aberrations and wrong 
opinions, the mind will accept them as its normal provender. 

Of this process the sick man with whom we are dealing provides 
the perfect paradigm. He tells us that for a time his mind vacillated, 
without being able to come to a decision, due to the anxieties produced 
by the poison. But, feeding on it for so many years, and submerging 
himself in contagious and toxic opinions, stubbornly refusing to take 
the theriac of sound advice and correct doctrine, that mind of his 
became so confirmed in those opinions that it grew impervious to their 
depredation. And so, by persisting in his error, he has finally sunk into 
his ultimate blindness, boasting that he has been granted worldly goods 
for his merits, that he lives happy and content, that he praises God 
for the human existence he has been granted, appointing himself 

— contrary to all legal convention — his own judge. Were he, however, 
to listen to the unbiased judgement of others, he would hear it say that 
it knows of no unhappier or more wretched creature; hated, abhorred 
even, by his own brothers; expelled; humiliated; lacking all credit; 
without peace in his own household; childless; without misva ; without 
tefila; in a word, deprived of everything. The worldly advantages from 
which he claims to derive consolation and which make him so conceited, 
such as enjoying good health and having enough to eat, are common 
to all humanity and not the prerogative of the meritorious. Even these 
he will soon lose as he himself admits when he says that the wicked 
should not be complacent about their riches for their punishment will 
not tarry long. And these few worldly goods that he now possesses, what 
blindness to claim that they came to him because he scorned the fear 
of men and put his faith in God. To attribute them to his own merits 
is contrary to the practice of righteous and saintly persons. Mose, with 
all his merits, supplicated God to let him enter the Holy Land for His 
mercy's sake, whereas he might have invoked those numerous merits. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


533 


Concerning him the Law testifies that he was extremely humble 1 and 
that was and has always been the attribute of the God-fearing righteous 
— living in distrust of themselves and putting all their hope only in 
God's mercy. Besides, to what merits may those many Israelites and 
gentiles who are much wealthier and healthier than he, attribute their 
good fortune? So this happiness that he prides himself on, is there really 
anything to it? Could it be his fine clothes? Surely others are even better 
dressed! Or could it be his delusion that neither felicity nor torment 
await him in a world to follow his enjoyment of so many boons in 
this one? Greater happiness will be ours for certain, we who hope 
for and believe that bliss awaits us in another world after all the evils 
of this one. 

Now, to thank God for one's human existence would be reasonable 
if one made proper use of one's human condition, but he who so utterly 
demeans himself as to identify with animals would be better off as one 
of them. For an elephant, a lion and many other beasts, having greater 
strength and a longer life-span, being exempt from hunger, sicknesses 
and despondencies, live far better than humans who, as Hippocrates 
put it so well, are useless at birth, ignorant during adolescence, over¬ 
weening in adulthood and miserable in old age. All these ills and endless 
others to which human beings are more prone than brutes, could not 
and cannot be mitigated, save by hope in future glory. Unimaginable, 
therefore is a more abject and despondent creature than a human being 
devoid of such hope. Thus our adversary is more unfortunate and worse 
off than the very worms, on whose miserable condition, so obvious and 
so well-known, one need hardly expatiate. 

Herewith we conclude our well-proven demonstration of the 
rational soul’s immortality, having refuted and explained away all the 
mistaken reasoning, all the misquoted and misinterpreted authorities 
alleged against it. 

We will now go on to demonstrate the truth which our opponent 
strives and continues to strive to discredit, by denying the validity of 
tradition and Oral Law. Here, in fact, we have the root from which 


l By adding the reference to Moses' humility, da Silva somewhat dilutes his argu¬ 
ment, for Moses — proverbially modest and unpreoccupied with his own merits — can 
hardly be a yardstick with which to judge lesser mortals. Sensing this, da Silva adds: 
"but humility was the quality of all righteous people." However, though none presumed 
to ask for divine favours on the strength of their merits, the Talmud abounds in instances 
of sages who ascribed their longevity and similar received favours to their piety. Cf. e.g., 
B.T. Megillah 28a; cf. also Is. 38, 3. 



534 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


proceeded and proceeds all his rankness. That root must be the Proposi¬ 
tion which he claims to have satisfactorily proved and which he says 
he set forth in Chapter 7 of his book. If God gives us life and we can 
get hold of it — to that end we are diligently applying every effort — 
we shall refute it as well, showing it to be entirely false. 


Chapter 29 

Concerning the Oral Law and the True Tradition 


The sages of the gentiles, however well trained they may have been 
in natural sciences, observation and analysis of data, yet — when it 
came to those areas of knowledge which depend on pure reason — 
incapable of reaching a consensus, split into opposing camps. There 
were great dissensions among them as regards the First Cause, the crea¬ 
tion of the world, principles of natural causes and many other 
philosophical questions, which still continue unresolved for want of 
a qualified arbitrator. Considering the limitations of the human mind, 
it can hardly be relied on to come up with definite answers to ques¬ 
tions so occult and so far removed from the senses. Thus, for all areas 
of scientific research, except those for which infallible answers exist, 
— such as arithmetic and geometry — some philosophical schools 
decided to rely on the authority of a great man who was so outstan¬ 
ding that his support would suffice to accredit any theory. An example 
of this would be Pythagoras' disciples who, when asked the reason for 
their belief, replied: "he said so.” 

But at the other extreme we find the sect of the Platonists who 
were taught by their Master not to accredit anything without manifest 
proof. Plato himself, reading the history and accounts of the creation 
of the world by Mose, is said to have exclaimed: "The rustic might 
be right if he could prove it!”: "rustic” being the epithet he applied 
to someone who averred anything without adducing due proof and 
demonstrative reason. 

The existence of this diversity demonstrates the impossibility of 
reaching true, sure and unfailing knowledge of hidden causes by way 
of reason, because through it one's comprehension is never entirely 
satisfied and all human reason involves a margin of error. What some 



SEMtfEL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


535 


minds accept and admit, others loathe and despise. Consequently, to 
have absolutely sure knowledge, without any room for doubt, recourse 
must be had to such an authority that generally satisfies and compels. 
This authority, however, being impossible to find among persons, must 
of necessity emanate from the Lord God Himself and the prophets 
illumined by Him. Only those who possess it are anchored in the 
certainty, truth and purity of what they believe, without any room for 
doubt or margin of error. Here we have the favour and singular advan¬ 
tage which God bestowed upon Yisra'el alone, raising it above all other 
nations: Yisra'el has a Law given by the mouth of God Himself, whereby 
He frees us 1 from all possible disputes with the gentiles concerning 
the creation of the world, for He declares: 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [Gn. 1, 1] 

and He confirms the truth we possess and believe concerning the 
essence and unity of the First Cause when He proclaims: 

Hear Yisra'el, 'Adonai our God 'Adonai one [Dt. 6, 4] 

and many other similar dogmas. 2 While these could be attained and 
acquired by analytical and natural reason, nevertheless, to reassure us 
completely and so that this truth be certain, constant and firmly 
established for us, it was necessary that God divulge it orally. Even this 
was done in such a way that He first prepared His people, showing it 


1 If da Silva's line of argument seems hard to follow, it is perhaps due to the 
uncertainty as regards whom he means to include in us. He seems to imply that he and 
his contemporaries have direct access to that infallible source of knowledge, and yet he 
never claims the gift of prophecy for himself or for anyone in his environment. In fact 
his belief seems to rely exclusively on tradition and its human transmitters. 

2 If da Silva has the Christians in mind when he speaks of gentes, these examples 
seem singularly ill-chosen to demonstrate the existence of some jewish dogma undisputed 
by them. Augustine (Confessions, Book 12) claims that the words of Gn. 1, 1 can be 
understood in many contradictory ways, all of them defendable. He himself adopted the 
view that "heaven” and "earth” refer to the matter of the intellectual and the sensible 
reality. Cf. J.C.M. van Winden, "The Early Christian Exegesis of 'Heaven and Earth’ in 
Genesis 1, 1,” Romanitas et Christianitas, Studia Iano Henrico Waszink, Amsterdam- 
London, 1973, 371-382. For a trinitarian interpretation of the word bara’ in Gn. 1, 1, 
cf. J. Reuchlin, De verbo mirifico, Basel, 1495, 3, 7. Dt. 6, 4 has been traditionally used 
in Christian exegesis as a proof-text for the Trinity. Cf. Maimonides, tehiyat hametim, 1. 
One is surprised that da Silva, with his catholic upbringing and taste for far-fetched 
hermeneutics, should have been unaware of these Christian interpretations. 



536 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


sure signs, miracles and marvels with which He confirmed and 
reassured it in the knowledge of His wisdom and infinite power and 
compelled it to relinquish and totally divest itself of the wicked beliefs 
learnt in Egypt and to profess the truth; as they did after crossing the 
Red Sea, where the text says about the children of Yisra'el, now 
redeemed from slavery and avenged of their enemies: 

[...] and the people feared the Lord and believed in the Lord and in His 
servant Mose [Ex. 14, 31]. 

'Abraham our father is praised for the virtue of faith, as it is 
written: 


And he believed in 'Adonai and He accounted it to him for righteousness 
[Gn. 15, 6]. 

David says: 

The road of faith have I chosen [...] [Ps. 119, 30] 

as if to say that that is the sure path in which the wise God-fearing man 
must walk, because in the others, which incline to human reason, 
there always lurks the danger of going wrong. In the same psalm he 
further states: 

all Thy precepts truth and faith [cf. Ps. 119; 86, 151] 

as if he were saying that all the precepts of the Law, even if a rationale 
could be and is given for them, have a little additional something which 
etherealizes them, namely to believe in them as a matter of faith and 
that inherent within them is some additional aura in their being 
commanded by God. Thus, while the gentiles are instructed by their 
laws not to steal, murder or commit adultery for considerations of 
polity, in God's Law, besides these considerations, there is the factor 
of obedience as a consequence of their being believed in as a matter 
of faith. So in addition to their clear rationality, they possess also the 
quality of divine fiat. This is a great mystery, so great that the psalmist, 
wishing to point out the superiority of God's Law and of Yisra'el, was 
inspired to exclaim: 

He hath not done so unto any nation, and ordinances they knew 
not [...] [Ps. 147, 20] 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


537 


to wit, in their laws they did not know or attain more than the clear 
and evident rationale, commanded to ensure peace and efficient 
administration of society here on earth, but in God's legal prescriptions 
there is a great difference, so much so that the gain and reward of 
having and keeping them reach to the world-to-come. Scripture says: 

[...] in keeping them there is great reward [Ps. 19, 12] 

a reward which derives from the aura and mystery inherent in believing 
them as a matter of faith, uniquely granted to Yisra’el. This is the 
meaning of: 

Open the gates, a righteous nation will enter, which keepeth faith 
[Is. 26, 2]. 

Those who arrogantly put themselves beyond the pale of this truth 
and faith, and presume to know the Law, are blind and ignorant 
wretches, unteachable and unworthy of instruction, about whom the 
prophet said: 

Woe unto those that are wise in their own eyes, and intelligent in their 
own esteem! [Is. 5, 21]. 

Having now well proved and shown this truth, that in the written 
Law we have many tenets of faith — even though a valid rationale may 
be provided for them — we will now propound another truth, which 
is also a matter of faith with us. That truth is that the written Law 
cannot be properly understood except by means of the genuine Tradi¬ 
tion given on Mount Sinai by God to Mose. This Tradition — or explana¬ 
tion of the written Law — is called Oral Law. Although we believe in 
it on faith and accept it unquestioningly as a teaching of our forebears, 
yet there is no lack of compelling, demonstrable and convincing 
arguments to show that the written Law cannot be understood without 
recourse to it, unless one is to run the risk of committing the gravest 
errors. This will become evident in the next chapter. 



538 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Chapter 30 

Containing Some Proofs of Tradition and the Oral Law 


Everything that human beings know is culled from three sources: 
authority, reason and experience. When we find things out by 
experience, we do so using our physical senses such as tasting, seeing 
and touching. Ascertaining through reason we do by analysing, 
distinguishing and examining. But that knowledge taught us by 
authority we believe and affirm. Of these three origins of knowledge, 
only authority — on condition that it emanate from a root and fount 
not susceptible to error — provides firmly established facts. 1 Reason 
is beset by a thousand shoals, because each one of its analytical tasks 
— composing and dividing, recognizing and separating the consequent 
from the inconsequent and, lastly, distinguishing the false from the 
true — presents a possible pitfall. To remedy this state of affairs logic 
invented instruments for defining, dividing and inferring, bringing in 
every type of proposition and syllogism and yet none of this suffices 
to prevent the confusion of theories which bedevil the sciences, the 
proliferation of religious sects, the immense variety of opinions 
presented by natural and political philosophy. 2 So it has been aptly 
said: "Count the heads and you have counted the opinions.” Experience, 
even though it provides more certainty than does reason, still has its 
limitations, because it may be confronted by anomalies, such as the 
heating of the human body by means of snow and its cooling by means 
of hot baths; the lowering of fever by drinking wine and its heightening 
by drinking water; and similar anomalies. 

But if something is ascertained in all three ways, such as that Oral 
Law which we of the people of Yisra'el hold and believe, who can doubt 
its infallibility and inviolability? For we have authority by way of Tradi¬ 
tion and the teaching of our forebears, assuring us that it originated 


1 Ultimately, then, it is that imperfect, frail human creature that has to recognize 
what is truly divine and sift it out from what is not. 

2 Interestingly, da Silva classifies the diversity among religions along with diver¬ 
sity in other areas of human endeavour, as all being equallly the result of the same mental 
processes. Further on, though, he seems to make an exception for the Oral Law, which 
is the basis of Pharisaism. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


539 


from the root and fount of Truth itself, which is the Lord our God, Who 
gave that explanation of the written Law to Mose on Mount Sinai. 3 
Mose transmitted it to Yehosua c and Yehosua c to the Elders and so 
on successively. Now howsoever such a well-founded and genuine 
authority suffices us, its credentials do not lack for strengthening by 
the bonds of experience and reason. As for experience: it is the most 
ancient, authentic and trustworthy of all the world's oral traditions, 
maintained for thousands of years, assailed by enemies and tempests 
galore, yet not one of them could impugn a single iota of its truth, 
founded on divine authority and so well impressed on the minds of good 
jews that death itself is insufficient — I do not say to extinguish it — 
but even to obfuscate its glory. 4 As for reason: though there are many 
arguments to support its truth and authenticity, I shall cite just a few 
which should convince even the most rebellious and contumacious 
person in the world. 

First argument: the written Law we believe by Tradition and faith, 
as can be clearly seen from the following. Just suppose it were lost and 
found again after a number of years, how could one accept its authen¬ 
ticity, except on faith, and by the authority and Tradition of the 
ancients? And this is by no means a hypothetical situation, but one that 
really and truly faced the people of Yisra'el during the reign of king 
Yosiyahu. As we are told in 2Kings 22, Hilqiyahu, the High Priest, 
brought him a book of the Law which had been discovered sandwiched 
between the masonry of the Temple. Although the contents of the book 
were totally unfamiliar to the king, nevertheless he took it on faith that 
what Hilqiyahu had brought him was the authentic book of the Law 
and he ordered the precepts it contained to be punctiliously observed. 
All the people, too, pledged themselves to obey, whereby they manifestly 
acknowledged the credence that is due to traditions as well as the 
binding force of transmitted teachings. 5 


3 Da Silva's belief in what he calls the Oral Law, derives, as he tells us, from his 
reliance on the forebears, whom he evidently thinks infallible — though he does not say 
this in so many words. 

4 Experience — one of the three ways — is defined above as knowledge gained by 
means of the senses. But da Silva fails to explain what e.g., tasting, smelling and seeing 
can tell us about an Oral Law. Apparently, he uses "experience” more in the sense of 
"collective historical memory,” confirming the Tradition. 

5 The comparison made in this paragraph between belief in the authority of Tradi¬ 
tion and in that of the Pentateuch is difficult to understand because, while there are 
references throughout Scripture to the Book of the Law of Moses, there is no hint of 
an Oral Law. 



540 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Second argument: the written Law commands us to search out 
traditions and to learn them from our forebears: 

[...] ask thy father and he will tell thee; thy elders and they will say it 
unto thee [Dt. 32, 7] 

and: 

If a matter be unknown to thee [...] And thou shalt come unto the 
priests [...] [Dt. 17, 8-9]. 

How can anything be more clearly stated than this, that in matters 
of doubt, God refers the plaintiff and the defendant to an authority in 
the Law, who will resolve the cases according to that Law, demanding 
obedience to his decision on pain of capital punishment? Had everything 
in the Law been fully expounded, all the people could have consulted 
it directly and saved themselves the trouble and expense of going 
to Jerusalem to consult the highest court of justice and imposing 
superfluous activity on those sages. 6 

Third argument: the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are all 
consonants and, instead of vowels, a system of points and dots has been 
devised. These, however, may not be marked in the scrolls of the Law, 
so that the vocalization is only known through oral transmission. Thus, 
in the Law and the rest of Scripture, a reader unaware of the tradi¬ 
tional vocalization would encounter many apparent homonyms, for 
instance, the frequently recurring word spelled zayin, leaf, res. Yet, 
thanks to the traditional vocalization we distinguish between zakar, 
zeker, zekor, which respectively signify "male, memory, remember.” 
Now, since all Yisra'el conforms to this traditional pronunciation and 
no one ever substitutes zakar for zeker , or zeker for zekor — and the 
same goes for many other merely apparent homonyms — who would 
be the sceptic so contumacious or blind as not to see or admit that our 
reading of the text of the Law and Scripture — without there being 
any discrepancy between us — derives from and depends exclusively 
on oral tradition? 

I shall not dwell at length on all those words which in the Law and 
the rest of Scripture are read at variance from their spelling, e.g., homa 
which we read thus — though spelt without a vav — and take to mean 
"wall,” although read phonetically hama , which means "heat” or "sun”; 
le c olam without a vav which we read thus and take to mean "forever,” 


6 One wonders, if there were in existence an Oral Law given to Israel by Moses, 
why all judges in Israel should not have been familiar with it. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


541 


although read phonetically le c alam, which means "in order to 
conceal”; etc. All Yisra'el reads and always read homa, not hama, 
though it has no vav [Ex. 14: 22, 29] and always read le c olam, not 
le c alam, though it has no vav, as for instance: 

[...] this is My name forever [...] [Ex. 3, 15]. 

Surely this uniformity could not have been maintained without the 
Tradition and divine inspiration, for it passes the understanding that 
all would read the words the same way, without any discrepancy, and 
even more so in cases where the traditional reading seems to make less 
sense than what is actually written. 

Fourth argument: there are verses in the Law whose interpreta¬ 
tion would be open to dispute but for Tradition — and yet uniformity 
is what the Law demands, as it says: 

One Law [...] shall be for you [...] [Nm. 15, 16]. 

With a scriptural text that allows for such diversity of interpreta¬ 
tion, how could there still be only one Law, without the Tradition? 7 
Out of the many examples illustrative of this truth we have chosen three. 
The first is a verse which treats of work prohibited on sabbat : 

[...] let no man go out of his place on the seventh day [Ex. 16, 30]. 

The second speaks of the feast of Tabernacles: 

And ye shall take unto yourselves on the first day fruit of the beautiful 

tree [...] [Lv. 23, 40]. 


7 This argument assumes that Scripture when promulgating "one Law” had in 
mind total conformity, down to the minutest detail. Noteworthy in the Pentateuch is the 
unevenness between the comprehensive and detailed treatment of some laws (e.g., 
[Ex. 21,2; Nm. 35, 10, ff., Lv. 1, 2ff.], until the end of the civil law) and a few general 
directives for others. Is it not really quite conceivable that where it did not specify, the 
Law actually intended to allow for discretion? Moreover, the Law sometimes explicitly 
invites diversity, as for example, when it says: "each according [...]” [Dt. 16, 16]. Nor is 
there total conformity with regard to certain obligatory sacrifices, such as those brought 
by a leper upon his purification; the sacrifice is in proportion to his means. Da Silva 
himself, in the next and last chapter, will inform us that Scripture either mandates or 
legitimizes alternative methods for fixing new moons, and proclaims both the ninth and 
tenth of the seventh month as days appropriate for fasting. 



542 


SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


The third one reads: 

And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house and upon 
thy gates [Dt. 6, 9; 11, 20]. 

Here is where the Tradition comes in to teach us that the word 
"place” in connection with sabbat means a distance of two thousand 
ells, which is as far as one may go on sabbat ; that the "fruit of 
the beautiful tree” is the citron; that the words to be written on the 
door-posts run from "Hear Yisra'el” through "and upon thy gates” 
[Dt. 6, 4-9] 8 . 9 

What is left to those who deny this tradition but to drown in a sea 
of absurdities? Some will say that the "place” in Ex. 16, 30 is one's 
home; others, one's town or city. Some will claim that the "beautiful 
fruit” is an orange or a quince. 10 Some will propose the Ten Command¬ 
ments to be written on the doors, others the entire Law. It will all be 
one big confusion. 

Just see what happens to those who want to translate the Holy Bible 
in total conformity with the Hebrew original, a manifest impossibility. 
Thus, of the six translations into Latin which we know of, called 
"Latin vulgates” (Jerome's, the Chaldaic Latin, Pagnino's, Ebero's, 
Munster's, Arias Montano's) ll , no two are identical and all of them are 


8 Cf. da Costa 1.14, note 62. 

9 Aside from the difficulty in respect to his general argument, da Silva's three 
examples seem particularly ill-chosen. The context of Exodus 16, 30 (as, ironically, pointed 
out by da Costa) makes it clear that it was addressed to the manna-gatherers who sallied 
forth daily to forage but were to refrain from this activity on the Sabbath. Incidentally 
the Talmud, on the whole, regarded the 2000 ells as a non-Biblical provision (cf. B.T. 
Sanhedrin 66a and Sotah 27b and 30b). The word hadar in Lv. 23, 40 is either the name 
of a particular tree commonly translated "beautiful”, in which case it would have been 
self-explanatory (a view found in the Talmud); or else it indeed means "beautiful” — the 
Law not wishing to narrow the choice to a particular species. Either way the Law is not 
defective, neither is it in requirement of a supplementary corpus to make it workable. 
The same objection can be levelled against da Silva's third example. 

10 It will be noted that the "fruit of the beautiful tree” has here become a 
"beautiful fruit.” For the source of da Silva's arguments, cf. our Introduction, 3. 

11 The reference is to the following Bibles: 1) Jerome's Vulgate (383-405), editio 
princeps Mainz, 1456; 2) the Complutensian Polyglot (containing the Vulgate and Latin 
versions of the Septuagint ant the Chaldee paraphrase, Alcala de Henares, 1514-1517; 
3) the modern, super-literal translation by Sanctus Pagninus (1466-1541), editio princeps, 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


543 


at variance in many places with the original Hebrew. Now if this is the 
case with a text and words which depend for their comprehension on 
watertight rules of grammar, what other means is there of safeguar¬ 
ding their essential and true significance and intention, if not recourse 
to the divine Tradition? Either one recognizes and follows that sure 
guide, or one stumbles and adopts dangerous absurdities to which are 
prone all those who depend on varying and inconstant man-made inter¬ 
pretations, which in matters as weighty as those of the Law are totally 
unacceptable. 12 

Nor shall I dwell at length on assertions in the Law that are in direct 
contradiction with one another. Take, for instance, the verse: 

And the residence of the children of Yisra’el [...] in Egypt was 430 years 

[Ex. 12, 40]. 

Now Qehat, the son of Levi, was one of those who went down to 
Egypt. And if we add up all the years of his life and those of his son 
c Amram, plus the 80 years of Moses' age when he brought the children 
of Yisra'el out of Egypt, we reach a total of only 350 years. 

We also read in the Law: 

With 70 souls did thy fathers go down into Egypt [...] [Dt. 10, 22] 

yet if we count them one by one we find only 69. Therefore — to 
conciliate these and other contradictory statements, as well as to obtain 
and follow a correct interpretation of the verses cited earlier on and 
of many others which resist elucidation by human minds — there must 
of necesssity be some superior guide to put them at rest and reveal the 
truth. That guide is none other than the Tradition, which was essential 
if there is to be one Law and one code [cf. Nm. 15, 16]. Without the Tradi¬ 
tion that would not have been possible. 


Wittemberg, 1565; 5) the Hebraica Biblia (Basle, 1534-1535) of Sebastian Munsterus 
(= Munster) (1489-1552), containing the first Protestant translation of the Old Testament; 
6) the Biblia Polyglotta or Biblia regia (Antwerp, 1569-1572) by Benito Arias Montano 
(1527-1598), containing the Vulgate and Latin translations of the Aramaic Targums, the 
Septuagint and the Peshitta, plus volumes of scholarly notes. 

12 Da Silva does not attribute the existence of doubt and controversy among 
translators as to the meaning of certain words and phrases in the Pentateuch to the evolu¬ 
tion of the Hebrew language, nor to the translators' lack of mastery of the ancient tongue. 
Thus he insinuates that the Pentateuch's obscurity was inherent from the beginning and 
intentional. 



544 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


Fifth argument: God concludes His detailed instructions to Mose 
in respect to the construction of the tabernacle with the words: 

[...] thou shalt make it as I showed it to thee on the mount [cf. Ex. 27, 8] 

which shows that for the work to be carried out to the desired stan¬ 
dard of refinement and excellence, written directives alone did not 
suffice, but had to be augmented by orally transmitted instructions. 
And even this had to be supplemented, for God had to fill the hearts 
of Bezal'el and 'Aholiab with understanding and wisdom for their crafts¬ 
manship to reach an even sublimer level. 

Many other arguments could be adduced to strengthen the five we 
have already given, but we can only touch lightly on a few of them. Were 
we to include all and expatiate on them, we should never conclude. Mose 
spent repeated periods on the mountain — of 40 days and 40 nights 
each — during which he neither ate, drank or slept. Since he was not 
an idler, how could he have occupied himself, except assimilating this 
divine Tradition? 13 The children of Yisra'el spent forty years in the 
desert, free of worry about their livelihood. What could have been their 
occupation, except to undergo instruction from their master Mose who 
governed them in conformity with genuine traditions? We need but 
observe how, when he was not sufficiently informed, he consulted and 
enquired of God as to what he should do. That is how he proceeded 
in the case of the blasphemer [Lv. 24, 10-16] and of the one who was 
gathering sticks on sabbat [Nm. 15, 32-36], both of whose sentences were 
delayed until God declared their fate, although according to the Law 
as it then stood they deserved death. 14 Can anyone doubt that there 
were many more cases of this sort — not mentioned in the Law — which 
perforce had to be decided according to the Tradition? 15 There are so 
many matters of great moment on which Scripture is silent, such as 


13 Scripture itself states quite clearly what Moses did on Mount Sinai. Cf. Ex. 24, 
12; 34, 28; Dt. 9, 9-11; 10, 10. Especially Ex. 24, 12 leaves no room for any non-written Law. 

14 Da Silva fails to divulge his source for the assertion that blasphemy and 
gathering of sticks on sabbath were capital offences in Israel prior to the two incidents 
that appear from the text to have occasioned new legislation. 

15 The author's logic is once again elusive, for if God had to be consulted, then 
there was presumably no codified Oral Tradition covering these cases. Unbeknown to 
da Silva, this precise point was made by da Costa (cf. [1624J.I.1.5). Thus the adduced 
examples, if anything, militate against the existence of an Oral Law given at Sinai. Alter¬ 
natively he believes the blasphemer and wood gatherer to have offended at a time prior 
to the Sinai revelation, in which case the incidents can prove nothing as regards an oral 
law given at Sinai. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


545 


the forms to be observed for buying and selling, deeds of dowry and 
divorce, last wills, contracts, obligations, mortgages and endless other 
possible everyday contingencies of a kind that must have arisen, for 
we read that Mose sat to judge the people the whole day and turned 
to God for consultation [Ex. 18, 13-15]. So numerous and complex were 
these law-suits that Yitro felt obliged to advise Mose to employ assis¬ 
tant judges and to leave to himself only the most difficult cases. It would 
not be correct to say that the adjudication was left to the discretion 
of the judge, to resolve each lawsuit in accordance with persons, time 
and place. For we see that Mose did not act so when Selofhad's 
daughters claimed their father's patrimony. And even though this case 
was amenable to Civil Law, Mose refrained from giving a decision 
before consulting God [Nm. 27, 1-11; 35: 5-6, 10]. Moreover it is apparent 
from the advice that Yitro gave Mose that the latter did not judge on 
the basis of his own opinion and evaluation, nor was the written Law 
adequate for their determination, but it was necessary to have recourse 
to the Supreme Judge, as Yitro says: 

Now hearken unto my voice, I will give thee counsel and God shall be 
with thee; be thou for the people to God-ward, and thou shalt bring 
the causes unto God [Ex. 18, 19] 16 . 

If any one is hard-hearted and pertinacious enough to require 
further proof of this truth [i.e., of the inadequacy of the Written Law], 
we need only add that there is no prescription in the Law to recite tefila ; 
yet we have many examples of saintly men who did so. 17 It must 
therefore perforce have come down from them to us by a continuous 
and pure tradition. 

I shall not dwell on the fact that whatever glosses are made on the 
laws, constitutions and legal decisions of the gentiles, depend for their 
validity on their degree of faithfulness to the author of those original 
legal decisions, constitutions and laws. Perforce, therefore, the inter¬ 
pretation of our divine Law depends solely on the Lord our God, Who 
authored it and all the glosses furnished by diligent God-fearing 


16 This verse seemingly constitutes yet another proof for the non-existence of a 
codified Oral Law. 

17 These examples he speaks of are to be found in the Law, and "the saintly men” 
include Abraham [Gn. 20, 17] and Moses [Nm. 21, 7; Dt. 9, 26]. Unless da Silva believes 
that only prescription formulated as law in the narrower sense was intended by the Torah 
as instruction for Israel, it is hard to fathom his assertion that prayer is not prescribed 
in the Law. 



546 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


scholars are guided by and directed to it. Let all glosses which deviate 
from it be considered absurd and detestable, sprouted from the minds 
of ignorant and arrogant men. 18 

There is no validity to the argument which claims that it would 
follow from the preceding that there are two Laws. In fact, the written 
and oral laws are a single entity, Scripture being the body and its inter¬ 
pretation the soul. Scripture contains its interpretation in potentia and, 
conversely, from the interpretation one could infer and reconstruct 
the written Law. The one and the other depend on God, Author of all 
perfections and truths. If it were otherwise — if the interpretations of 
the Holy Law had been dependent for their inspiration on human beings, 
they would, like all human understanding, be subject to lies, as it 
is written: 


[...] every man is a liar [...] [Ps. 116, 11] 


Last Chapter 

Concerning the Truth of our Calculations of the New Moon 
and Other Solemnities 


What in Hebrew is called ros hodes, or beginning of the month, is 
called in Latin novilunio or interlunio and in our language conjungao 
da lua (conjunction of the moon), all of which terms refer to the moon 
when it is completely hidden from our view. The moon does not emit 
light of its own, but depends on the sun for its brightness. At the time 
of the conjunction sunlight hits only that part of the moon which is 
always hidden from human view, so that, for several hours, as long as 
it is on the same longitude as the sun, the moon is entirely invisible 
to us. Then, through the continual movement of the planets, the moon 


18 Da Silva starts off this argument recognizing that the interpreters of any legal 
system are not necessarily identical with its framers. But as the argument unfolds, he 
seems to have adopted the assumption that a law and any valid interpretation thereof 
must originate with one and the same author. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


547 


goes out of its temporary alignment with the sun and into a position 
facing it. As the two bodies get closer and closer to a face-to-face posi¬ 
tion, we say that the moon waxes, i.e., a progressively larger part of 
its visible surface is illuminated. When it is face to face with the sun, 
its visible surface is entirely illuminated. This is called opposition, 
plenilunio or full moon. It appears to us in the east, and the sun, 
opposite it, in the west. Then the cycle continues in reverse direction, 
the moon receiving progressively less light from the sun. As it moves 
closer to that star it appears to us to wane, until it is once again totally 
obscured from our view. In this perennial lunar cycle there are 14 days 
plus several hours of waxing until it is full, and the same time span 
of waning until it is new. 

The conjunction of the new moon was much celebrated by the 
ancient Chaldeans, Persians and Greeks, but especially by the Hebrews. 
They gave up the astronomic computation of its occurrence and 
proclaimed the first day of the month when two persons testified to 
the supreme magistrate of the Sanhedrin in Yerusalayim that they had 
seen the new moon, whereupon they solemnized that day by means of 
a sizeable sacrifice, as the Law commands: 

And on the beginning of your months shall ye bring a burnt-offering 
unto 'Adonai, bulls the young of cows: two [...] [Nm. 28, 11]. 

Our people abandoned the astronomic computation, not because 
they lost or despised it. Indeed, they continued to follow it and by its 
means they knew in advance on what day to expect the witnesses. If 
these did not appear during that day, they would sanctify the following 
day, whether or not the witnesses showed up. As a result there were 
often two days of new moon in Yerusalayim, as it is written: 

And it came to pass on the morrow of the month, the second [...] and 
Sa'ul said to Yehonatan, his son: "Wherefore is the son of Yisai not 
come, both yesterday and today, to the repast?” [ISm. 20, 27] 

Our sages considered this method of sanctifying the months more 
accurate than the astronomic computation, especially for months 
when the conjunction occurred at midnight or at noon. They had been 
given full authority and permission to fix the new moons either way, 
as may be seen in the wording of the first precept given the children 
of Yisra'el in Egypt: 


This month shall be unto you the head of months [...] [Ex. 12, 2]. 



548 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


The phrase "unto you” means: The manner of sanctifying it at its 
beginning is left up to you’ —, "you” being firstly Mose and 'Aharon, 
but "you” also designates their successors. It was for them to regu¬ 
late and order and for the people to obey, as was done during many 
hundreds of years in Yerusalayim — as long as the sway and jurisdic¬ 
tion of the High Magistrate of the Sanhedrin lasted. Their authority 
in this respect extended very far, as may be seen by the wording "this 
month”, which avoids naming any month in particular. This wording 
leaves it to the discretion of the Magistrate to proclaim the first month 
when it seemed to him that by doing so the festival of pesah would fall 
in the spring, as the Law commands: 

Observe the month of the early crop and thou shalt make pesah unto 

'Adonai thy God [...] [Dt. 16, 1]. 

The "month of the early crop” does not always occur at the same 
time of the solar year, but sometimes earlier and sometimes later. 
Seeing that God ordered — besides the choice of the "month of the early 
crop” — the people to betake themselves on the three festivals to 
Yerusalayim, He left the highest magistrate the option of anticipating 
the proclamation of the first month by one month according to the 
demands of the occasion and the variations of climate. The magistrate's 
decision would depend on whether the trees were already sprouting 
or flowering; on the possible discomfort to pilgrims occasioned by 
the bad state of the roads due to floods; broken bridges, etc. Nor 
did the authority of the magistrates end there. If it seemed expedient, 
they could prolong any given festival, solemnizing more days than the 
Law commands, as did Selomo who, because of the great assembly of 
the people, prolonged the feast of Tabernacles and caused it to be 
celebrated for fourteen days, although the Law commands merely seven 
[cf. lKgs. 8, 65?]. 1 

However, in this manner of proclaiming and sanctifying the 
conjunctions and solemnizing the beginnings of months by way of 
ocular witnesses, there is one great drawback. Those who dwelled 
outside the Holy Land were always in doubt as to when to celebrate 
the festivals, since they did not know which of the two days at the begin- 


i Cf. 2Chr. 7, 8-9. Da Costa's objection to this erroneous statement ([1624J.I.13) is 
well-taken. The first seven days of King Solomon's feast were spent in the rites of dedica¬ 
tion and the last seven days coincided with the feast of Tabernacles. 



SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


549 


ning of the new month had been sanctified in Yerusalayim and notice 
could not reach them in time. To avoid transgression, they celebrated 
every festival for two days outside the Holy Land, save only the Great 
Day of Kipur. Since not all would be able to fast two days consecutively, 
it was decided always to determine its date by counting ten days from 
the first day of the seventh month. If it should later transpire that the 
beginning of that month had been proclaimed in Yerusalayim on the 
second day and they had accordingly celebrated Yom Kippur on the 
ninth day, they had not transgressed the Law, which had anticipated 
this situation and provided a remedy, for it is written: 

[...] and ye shall afflict your souls on the ninth of the month on the 

even [...] [Lv. 23, 32] 

as if to say: 'Even though the fast of the seventh month is prescribed 
for the tenth day of that month, were you to hold it on the ninth, it will 
nevertheless be accepted’. 2 

That great sage, Rabbi Hillel, prince and president of the Sanhedrin 
of his time, pondering that the captivities and exiles were fast 
approaching, 3 as a result of which Yisra'el would be scattered over 
the four corners of the earth and that, consequently, the practice of 
sanctifying the beginnings of months would entirely die out, calculated 
the dates when all the festivals would fall, until the end of the world, 
on the basis of the conjunctions of the moon, coordinating them with 
the solar calendar by means of the epact. His system was applied in 
the Holy Land, but outside its borders quarrels arose, some desiring 
to apply the new Holy Land system, others desiring to continue as they 
had done until then. The matter was submitted to the exalted judge¬ 
ment of the Sanhedrin in Yerusalayim, which decided that those who 
dwelt in the Diaspora should on no account abandon the ancient prac¬ 
tice of their forefathers. While the judges of the Sanhedrin did not 
explain their verdict, they must surely have had a very good cause and 
reason for it. Perhaps to impress upon our minds, by way of consola¬ 
tion, that we would not always be in exile from the Holy Land; or so 


2 The source of this inventive exegesis and of most of the following paragraph is 
Leon Modena's magen ve-sina. Cf. our Introduction, 3. 

3 The author appears to confuse two distinct Hillels. The one who supposedly 
foresaw the dispersion was the first. The Hillel who reformed the calendar was a remote 
descendant who lived centuries after the destruction of the Temple. 



550 


SEMU'EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


that from one festival to the other we should keep alive the hope that 
we would one day return there and take delight in going back to the 
old practice of waiting for ocular witnesses before proclaiming the first 
days of the month; or to make us feel more deeply our loss and misery, 
pray God to take pity on us and redeem us and bring us back to our 
land where we may all celebrate our solemn feasts at the same time; 
or, lastly, because it seemed unjust to take away from those extra 
festival days the dignity and privilege acquired so long ago and 
confirmed over such a long period of time. There may have been other 
reasons still. In any case, they ordered that the old usage be kept and 
followed, for they believed that less scandal would result from keeping 
an old custom, initiated and followed by their predecessors, in a sphere 
wherein they had power and authority, than to diminish its prestige 
by derogating from it, which might give people occasion to diminish 
the respect and obeissance due to the rites of the ancients and men of 
high rank in Yisra'el. For even the smallest change in an ancient and 
established custom would perilously open the door to more extensive 
changes, resulting in the total extinction and ruin of received and 
approved laws and ritual. This truism has led worldly wise people to 
say that it is better to tolerate a traditional precept — even one not 
intrinsically well-founded —than to introduce a new one, even though 
it were an improvement. In this case it cannot really be said that we 
are following a custom which is not good. One that was followed by 
prophets, kings and magistrates, there is all the more reason that we 
should follow. Contradicting and impugning it would be intolerable, 
criminal insolence and wickedness. 

Wishing to overthrow these truths and well-established teachings 
some have argued that if the conjunction of the moon were calculated 
astronomically we could dispense with observing two days of ros hodes. 
The objection has also been voiced that we sometimes proclaim ros 
hodes on the first day many hours before the conjunction. These stric¬ 
tures are invalid because the keeping of two days of ros hodes in some 
months was a useful and necessary ordinance. The purpose was to 
equalize the months and ensure that their excess of several hours over 
the days do not accumulate and thus upset the calculation. As to 
proclaiming ros hodes several hours before the conjunction, there is 
no harm in it, because when this occurs we do not base our calculation 
of the festivals on the first day, but on the second, which we call the 
first of the new month and the first day of Ros Hodes is reckoned as 
the last of the preceding month. 



SEMU’EL DA SILVA : TREATISE 


551 


From all the above may be deduced the truth and solidity of the 
dating of our new months and of the solemn festivals which depend 
on them, as well as the wisdom, ingeniousness and diligence of our great 
sages who authored these infallible calculations, approved and followed 
by the foremost experts of the gentiles. Equally manifest is the appalling 
ignorance and churlishness of their opponent, who, equipped with 
feeble arguments, arrogance and contumacy had the nerve and audacity 
to attack them, desiring to storm heaven and have it out with God, much 
like the giants of old who founded the Tower of Babel, he who cannot 
even put up a ramshackle hut. But soon God will destroy him with a 
conspicuous and fearful punishment unless he quickly repents of his 
error and rebellion, begging God to have pity on him, which He may 
bestow upon all His people Yisra'el and redeem us from all our 
captivities and blindnesses through His infinite mercy. AMEN. 


FINIS 




APPENDICES 




555 


Appendix 1 

Transcription of Document Handwritten and Signed 
by Uriel da Costa at Coimbra, October 8 1601 


Alvaro Soares, residindo na corte de Roma, impetrou alguns benefficios contra a 
ordem de V[ossa] M[ajestade] e cometeo outras culpas, pellas quais se p[ro]cedeo contra 
elle, e foy desnaturado destes reinos; e ultimamente impetrou hum canonicato nesta See; 
e mostrando-lhe o agente de V[ossa] M[ajesta]de na Corte de Roma hua carta, na qual 
V[ossa] M[ajesta]de lhe ordenava impetrasse o dito canonicato pera certa pessoa, e 
encomendando-lhe desista da graga que S[ua] S[antida]de lhe tinha concedido, elle o nao 
quis fazer, antes se [lhe negou] a sumissao devida, mandou ha estes reinos procuragao 
pera em seu nome se tomar posse do dito canonicato, o qual se lhe ouvera de [dar], se 
V[ossa] M[ajesta[de] nao mandava escrever ao B[is]po nosso prellado, encomendando-lhe 
a nao desse, por quanto estava desnaturado, e compria asy o seu servigo; e outro sy o 
p[ro]curador da coroa destes reinos por ordem de V[ossa] M[ajesta]de mandou notificar 
aos notarios desta cidade pera que em nome do p[ro]curador do dito Alvaro Soares nao 
pedissem a dita posse, nem fizessem neste particular requerimentos alguns. E estando 
o negocio nestes termos, alcangou de V[ossa] M[ajesta]de licenga, se vir ha esta corte, 
dar descargua das culpas que lhe forao impostas. E andando m[ui]tos meses neste 
requerimento, foi V[ossa] M[ajesta]de servido de lhe perdoar, fazendo-lhe outrosy m[erce] 
de o admittir a natur[alidade], fazendo-o com isso capas pera se lhe dar posse do canonicato 
e prebenda de que S[ua] S[antida]de lhe tinha feito m[erce], como de facto lhe deu, tanto 
que mostrou melhoramento da sentenga que contra elle estava dada. E ora chegou a nossa 
noticia que elle tinha alcangado hum breve de S[ua] S[antida]de, pera lhe serem tornadas 
todas as distributes quotidianas, des no dia, des no tempo que lhe fora feito graga do 
dito canonicato e prebenda, atee o dia que se lhe deu posse, sem embarguo de estar nesse 
tempo desnaturaao, nem estar por nos deixado elle de estar admitidao, e de se lhe dar 
posse do dito benefficio. 0 que nao somente he contra dereito e costume immemorial 
nas chatedrais destes reinos, mas muito contra o servido de V[ossa] M[ajesta]de, pois nao 
deve ser sua tengao que as pessoas que V[ossa] M[ajesta]de ordena sejao desnaturadas, 
ou por culpas, ou por impetrarem benefficios contra a ordem que nisso tern mandado 
tomar, devao, estando em Roma, ganhar as destribuigoes quotidianas, devidas somente 
aos interessantes no servido da igreja, e que ajao de estar em deposito as tais destribuigoes 
todo o tempo que estiverem desnaturados e fora da graga de V[ossa] M[ajesta]de, atee 
que alcancem perdao de suas culpas e sejao admittidos, ficando os benefficiados presentes, 
comprindo com suas obrigagoes e sustentando o pezo do servigo da igreja; e porque 
semelhantes breves se passao pera por elles se fazer execugao, sem neste reino se tomar 
conhecimento da causa, nem serem as partes ouvidas, e a resolugao que se tomar no caso 
de Alvaro Soares a de ficar por exemplo ha os que ora estao desnaturados e ao diante 
o forem, pedimos a V[ossa] M[ajesta]de nos faga m[erce] mandar ao dito Alvaro Soares 
ponha ordem nesta sua pretengao e se escreva ao agente em Roma impida qualquer breve 
que no caso se pedir ou for pedido, ou que pello menos nao sejam os executados, sem 
neste reino seremos ouvidos por parte desta igreja, na qual com o particular servigo que 
lhe devemos, pedimos todos os dias a D[eu]s guarde a V[ossa] M[ajesta]de. 8 de 8[tu]bro 
de 601. 

Do Cabido da See de Coimbra 

Gabriel da Costa Joam Pinto P[e]r[eir]a 



556 


APPENDICES 


Appendix 2 

Transcription of minutes of May 15 1623 meeting of delegates 
from three Sephardic congregations concerning the arrival at Amsterdam 

of Uriel da Costa 

2nd excomunication 


Os S[e]n[h]ores deputados da nagao fazem saber a V[ossa]s M[erce]s como tendo noticia 
que hera vindo a esta cidade hu home que se pos por nome Uriel Abadat, e que trazia 
m[ui]tas opinioes falsas e hereticas contra nossa Santissima Lei, pellas quais jaa em 
Amburgo e Veneza foi declarado por hereje e excomungado, dezejando reduzi-lo a verdade, 
fizerao todas as dilig[enci]as necessarias, por vezes, com toda a suavidade e brandura, 
por meo de hahamim e velhos de nossa nagao, a que ditos S[e]n[h]ores deputados se acharao 
prezentes. E vendo que por pura pertinacia e arrogancia persiste em sua maldade e falsas 
opinioes, ordenarao com os mahamadot das c[e]hilot e cons[entiment]o de ditos hahamim 
aparta-lo como home ja enhermado e maldito del Dio, e que lhe nao fale pessoa algua 
de nenhua qualidade, ne home, ne molher, ne parente, ne estranho, ne entre na casa onde 
estiver, ne lhe dem favor algu, ne o comuniquem, com pena de ser comprehendido no 
mesmo herem e de ser apartado de nossa comunicagao. E a seus irmaos por bons respeitos 
se concedeu termo de outo dias p[ar]a se apartarem delle. 

Amsterdam, 30 del homer 5383 

Samuel Alvares Binhamin Israel Abraham Curiel 

Josef Abeniacar Rafael Jesurun Jacob Franqo 


Appendix 3 

Uriel da Costa's own account of his life 
(Exemplar humanae vitae,), 
englished by John Whiston (London, 1740) 


I was born in Portugal in a city of the same name, but commonly called Oporto. My 
parents were of the nobility and originally descended from those jews who were 
constrained to embrace the Christian religion in that kingdom. My father was a true Chris¬ 
tian and a man of strict honour and integrity. I had a genteel education at home, servants 
always to command and a managed Spanish gennet to perfect myself in that exercise 
of the great horse in which my father was completely skilled, and I endeavoured to follow 
his steps to the utmost. At length being grown up, and as well accomplished in the liberal 
arts as young gentlemen generally are, I applied myself to the study of the law. As to 
my genius and disposition, I was naturally very pious and compassionate, insomuch that 
I could not hear the story of any person's misfortunes without melting into tears, and 
had such an innate sense of modesty that I dreaded nothing so much as to suffer disgrace. 
Not that I had the least cowardice in my temper or was free from resentment when a 
just occasion offered, for which reason I always had an aversion to that haughty and 
insolent race of men who are apt to despise and trample upon others, and therefore took 
all opportunities to defend the oppressed and to make their cause my own. 



APPENDICES 


557 


By religion has my life been made a scene of incredible sufferings. I was educated 
according to the custom of that country in the popish religion, and when I was but a 
young man the dread of eternal damnation made me desirous to keep all its doctrines 
with the utmost exactness. I employed my leisure time in reading the Gospel and other 
spiritual books, ran through breviaries of the confessors, and the more time I bestowed 
upon them, the greater difficulties still rose upon me, which by degrees threw me into 
such inextricable perplexities, doubts and difficulties as overwhelmed me with grief and 
melancholy. 

It seemed to me a thing impossible by confessing my sins (after the custom of the 
Roman Church) to obtain by virtue thereof a plenary absolution and to have fulfilled 
all the things that were required, and this consequently made me despair of salvation, 
as it was to be obtained only by such particular rules. But as it was a very difficult thing 
to shake off at once a religion which I had been educated in from my infancy and which 
by a long implicit faith had taken deep root, I began when I was about twenty years old 
to question with myself whether or no it was possible for those things which were related 
of another life to be forgeries, and whether a belief of them was consistent with reason, 
forasmuch as my reason did perpetually suggest to me things that were directly contrary. 
Under this doubt I continued some time, and at last came to this settled persuasion 
that salvation was not to be obtained in the way that I was in. During this time I applied 
myself to the study of the law, and when I was in my twenty-fifth year an opportunity 
offered by which I obtained an ecclesiastical benefice, viz. the dignity of treasurer in 
the collegiate church. 

Not being able to find that satisfaction I wanted in the Romish Church, and being 
desirous to attach myself to one; knowing also there was a great dispute betwixt the Chris¬ 
tians and jews, I went through the books of Moses and the Prophets, wherein I found 
some things not a little contradictory to the doctrines of the New Testament, and there 
seemed to be the less difficulty in believing those things which were revealed by God 
himself. Besides, the Old Testament was assented to both by jews and Christians, whereas 
the New was believed by Christians only. Hence I was induced to become a convert to 
the law of Moses, and as he declared himself only to be a deliverer of what was revealed 
by God himself, being called by him to that office or, rather, constrained to accept it 
(so easily are the ignorant imposed on), I thought it my duty to make the law the rule 
of my obedience. Having entered upon this resolution, and finding it unsafe to profess 
this religion in that country, I began to think of changing my habitation and leaving my 
native home. In order to [effect] this I immediately resigned my ecclesiastical benefice 
in favour of another, unbiased either by the profits or honour of it, which are two 
prevailing motives with the people of our nation. I also left a handsome house situated 
in the best part of the city, that my father had built. Which having done, my mother, 
brothers and myself embarked on board a ship, though at a very great hazard, it not being 
lawful for those that are descended from the jews to depart the kingdom without the 
king’s special license. I must acquaint the reader that, from a principle of natural affec¬ 
tion, I had communicated to them my sentiments on the falsity of our religion, though 
such a discovery might have proved fatal to me, so dangerous a thing is it in that country 
to speak freely on this subject, though to the dearest friends. Having finished our voyage 
and being arrived at Amsterdam, where we found the jews professing their religion with 
great freedom, as the Law directs them, we immediately fulfilled the precept concer¬ 
ning circumcision. 

I had not been there many days before I observed that the customs and ordinances 
of the modem jews were very different from those commanded by Moses. Now if the 
Law was to be strictly observed, according to the letter, as it expressly declares, it must 
be very unjustifiable in the jewish doctors to add to it inventions of a quite contrary nature. 
This provoked me to oppose them openly: nay, I looked upon it as doing God service to 
defend the Law with freedom against such innovations. The modern jewish rabbins, like 
their ancestors, are an obstinate and perverse race of men, strenuous advocates for the 
odious sect of the Pharisees and their institutions, not without a view to gain and, as 
is justly imputed to them, vainly fond of the uppermost seats in the synagogue and 
greetings in the market. Men of this character could not bear that I should differ from 
them, though in the most minute points, insisting upon my following their steps exactly 
in everything or else threatening to exclude me from their synagogue and to pass full 
sentence of the greater excommunication upon me. But as it was unworthy of him who 
had so lately left his native country and been content to forego many other temporal 
advantages for liberty of conscience to be overawed and forced to submit to men who 
had no right to such a power (besides, I thought it both sinful and beneath a man to be 



558 


APPENDICES 


a slave in things pertaining to conscience), therefore I resolved rather to suffer the worst 
they could inflict rather than recant. Accordingly they excommunicated me from their 
society, insomuch that my own brothers, who before took me for their teacher in spiritual 
things, durst not take any notice of me as they passed by me in the street, for fear of 
the rabbins. 

This situation of affairs put me upon writing a treatise in defence of myself, and 
to prove plainly out of the Law of Moses the vanity and invalidity of the traditions and 
ordinances of the Pharisees, and their repugnancy to that Law. After I had begun this 
work (for I think myself obliged to relate everything plainly and circumstantially), it 
happened that I entirely agreed with the opinion of those who confine the rewards and 
punishments proposed in the Old Testament to this life only, and seem to be little 
concerned about a future state or the immortality of the soul, being induced to embrace 
this opinion by the following arguments among others: because the Law of Moses is quite 
silent as to the last two points and only proposes temporal rewards and punishments 
to the observers and transgressors thereof. This was no small matter of triumph to my 
adversaries, to find that I had entertained such opinions, thinking they had thereby gained 
the Christians to their party, who by their faith in the Gospel — which expressly mentions 
eternal rewards and punishments — do believe and maintain the immortality of the soul. 
It was with this view of rendering me odious to the Christians and to silence me entirely 
that before my book was put to the press they employed a certain physician to publish 
a treatise entitled «Of the Immortality of the Soul,» in which the doctor inveighed bitterly 
against me as one who defended Epicurus' principles and who, by denying the immor¬ 
tality of the soul, did in a manner dispute the being of God. Whereas at that very time 
I had conceived but an ill opinion of Epicurus and, being prejudiced by the unfair rela¬ 
tions of other people, without hearing what he had to say for himself, did not scruple 
to censure him with great freedom. But, having heard the sentiments of some impartial 
lovers of truth concerning him and his doctrine, I have found reason to change mine and 
to be sorry for the injustice I did him then in pronouncing so great a man to be both 
absurd and mad, when at this very time I am so far from being a competent judge of 
his opinions that I am an utter stranger to his works. 

The next step they took was to set children upon me in the streets who insulted me 
in a body as I walked along, abusing and railing at me, crying out: « There goes a heretic, 
there goes an apostate!» At other times they assembled together before my doors, flinging 
stones at the windows and doing everything they could to disturb and annoy me, so that 
I could not live at quiet in my own house. 

After the doctor's book I have mentioned was published, immediately I set about 
my own defence and wrote an answer to it, in which I opposed the doctrine of the soul’s 
immortality with all the strength I was able, glancing by the way at the deviations of 
the Pharisees from the Mosaic Institution. No sooner had this appeared in print, than 
the senators and rulers of the jews agreed to lay an information against me before the 
public magistrate, setting forth that I had published a book to disprove the immortality 
of the soul, and that with a view to subvert not only the jewish, but also the Christian 
religion. Upon this information I was apprehended and sent to prison from whence, after 
a confinement of eight or ten days, I was discharged upon giving security. For I was fined 
by the magistrate in the penalty of three hundred florins, besides the forfeiture of my 
books lately published. Some time after this, as age and experience are apt to occasion 
new discoveries to the mind of man and, consequently, to alter his judgement of things 
(let me here declare my mind freely, for what should hinder a man from speaking the 
truth without reserve, who is just going to make his exit and to leave behind him a sad 
though true example of human misery?), it was some time after this, I say, that I began 
to question with myself whether the Law of Moses ought to be accounted the Law of 
God, seeing there were many arguments which seemed to persuade or rather determine 
the contrary. At last I came to be fully of opinion that it was nothing but a human inven¬ 
tion like many other systems in the world and that Moses was not the writer, for it 
contained many things contrary to the Law of Nature. And God, who was the author of 
that Law, could not contradict Himself, which He must have done had He given to men 
a rule of obedience contrary to that first Law. Having thus determined this point, I began 
to reason with myself in the following manner (I wish I had never entertained such a 
thought!): What can it profit me to spend all my days in this melancholy state, separated 
from the society of this people and their elders, especially as I am a stranger in this 
country, destitute of any acquaintance with its inhabitants or even knowledge in its 
language? How much better will it be for me to return to their communion and to 
conform to their ways, in compliance with the proverb which directs us «at Rome 



APPENDICES 


559 


to do as they do at Rome»? These considerations prevailed with me to return to their 
society. Accordingly, I made a formal recantation and subscribed such articles as they 
were pleased to impose upon me, after having lived fifteen years in a state of separation 
from them. I must observe that a certain cousin of mine helped to mediate this recon¬ 
ciliation betwixt us. 

A few days after this I was accused by a lad, my nephew, whom I kept in my house, 
in relation to meats, the manner of dressing them and other ceremonies of the like nature, 
by which it appeared that I did not conform to the customs of the jews. Upon this infor¬ 
mation new and cruel proceedings were commenced against me. For my cousin, whom 
I mentioned before as a sort of mediator betwixt us, thinking that this behaviour of mine 
reflected dishonour on his mediation and being, besides, a proud, resentive, bold fellow 
and very hasty, declared himself openly my inveterate enemy, and seducing all my brothers 
over to his side, left nothing unessayed that might ruin me in my reputation and fortune 
and, by consequence, that might deprive me of life itself. He prevented a marriage which 
I was then just upon the point of concluding, for I had lost my wife lately. He was likewise 
the occasion that one of my brothers detained from me my effects which he had in his 
hands, and also put a stop to the dealings which subsisted between us, by which means 
I suffered a prodigious detriment in my affairs. In a word, he was a most implacable 
enemy to my reputation, fortune and life. Besides this domestic war (if I may so call it), 
another of a more public nature was carried on against me by the rabbins and the people, 
who began to persecute me with fresh hatred, behaving with such insolence to me as 
raised my just abhorrence and detestation of them. At this time a new affair broke out, 
as follows: 

I happened one day to be in company with two men who came from London to 
Amsterdam, the one a Spaniard, the other an Italian — both Christians and not so much 
as related to the jews by descent — who, taking an opportunity to declare to me their 
necessitous condition, asked my advice touching their becoming proselytes to judaism. 
Whereupon I dissuaded them from any such purpose, advising them rather to bear the 
inconveniences of their present condition than to subject themselves to so heavy a yoke, 
the grievousness of which they were unacquainted with — cautioning them at the same 
time not to make the least mention to the jews of what had passed between us, which 
they faithfully promised me. But these perfidious wretches, induced by the hopes of filthy 
lucre, instead of returning to me thanks, went and disclosed all to my dear friends, the 
Pharisees. Upon this the rulers of the synagogue met, the rabbins were fired with rage 
and resentment and the insolent rabble cried out with one voice: «Crucify him.» In a 
word, I was cited to appear before the Sanhedrim, where the articles of my charge were 
read with as solemn and awful voice as though I had been on my trial for life. And then 
it was determined that if I was really a jew, I ought to be resigned and submit to their 
sentence; otherwise I must be excommunicated again. 

Very just and equitable judges, who assume to yourselves the power of condemna¬ 
tion and punishment! But if I appeal to your authority for protection against oppression 
and wrong, then indeed you pretend that you have not authority to interfere in those 
matters and are only servants and subjects to the civil power! Of what validity then is 
your judgement, that I should obey it? 

Then was read out of a little book my sentence, which was that I must make my 
entrance into the synagogue dressed in a mourning vestment, holding a black wax taper 
in my hand, and there to read distinctly before the whole congregation a form of recan¬ 
tation penned by them in which they had described in black and odious colours the great 
enormity of my crimes. Then I was to submit to be whipped in the same public manner 
with a scourge made of leather thongs. After that to prostrate myself at the door of the 
synagogue that they might all pass over me and, moreover, to fast on certain days. 

I had no sooner heard my sentence but I was fired with indignation and a just resent¬ 
ment. However, containing my passion as well as I could, I only answered that I could 
not prevail with myself to undergo such a severe sentence. When I had given in my answer, 
they consulted together and proceeded to a second excommunication of me. But not 
content with this, many of them spit upon me as they passed by me in the streets and 
encouraged their children to do the same. In short, the only reason they did not stone 
me was because they wanted power. 

This persecution lasted the space of seven years, during which time should I relate 
all that I suffered it would appear incredible, for two parties violently persecuted me: 
one the whole jewish body, the other my relations, who fought for their revenge in my 
disgrace. Nor would they be satisfied till they got me into their own power and jurisdic¬ 
tion, saying among themselves: «He is stubborn; he will do nothing till he is forced and 



560 


APPENDICES 


therefore ought to be compelled.» If I was sick, nobody would attend me; if I laboured 
under any misfortune, it was a matter of triumph and joy to them; if I proposed anyone 
of their own body to be a judge between us, the proposal was rejected. And, as to disputing 
things of this nature before a public magistrate, which I began to do, I found it very tedious 
and difficult, for judicial proceedings are at least both dilatory and expensive. During 
these my troubles they would often exhort me to submission, saying: «We are all your 
fathers and therefore you need not fear that we shall act an unfair or unkind part towards 
you. Only say that you are ready to perform whatsoever we enjoin you and leave the rest 
to us and all shall be made easy.» This was the very point in dispute and I was also sensible 
how disgraceful it was to surrender at discretion and depend on their mercy. Yet being 
desirous to put an end to this long affair, after much reluctance I prevailed with myself 
to submit to their own terms and make trial of their honour. For thus I argued with myself: 
«If they deal dishonourably by me they will stand convicted by their own proceedings 
and make evident their implacable disposition towards me and how little trust is to be 
reposed in them.» 

And, at length, this execrable and detested people did plainly show what their religion 
and principles are, by treating men of honour and character in as scandalous a manner 
as if they had been the vilest slaves upon earth. In a word, I said to them: «Behold I depend 
upon your mercy and am ready to undergo whatever you are pleased to impose on me.» 
Now let every man of candour and humanity attend to my relation and judge of the 
sentence which a particular set of people — and under a foreign jurisdiction — passed 
upon an innocent man. 

I made my entrance into the synagogue which was filled with men and women out 
of curiosity to be spectators. And at the time appointed I went up into the desk which 
stood in the middle of it and with a distinct voice read over the form of confession which 
they had drawn up for me, viz. that I deserved to die a thousand deaths for the crimes 
and misdemeanors I had committed, such as profanation of the sabbath, breach of my 
religious vow, etc. which I had so far violated as to dissuade others from being converts 
to judaism; to atone for which impieties I submitted to their sentence and was ready 
to undergo whatever they were pleased to lay upon me, promising not to be guilty of 
the like crimes for the future. 

When I had finished my lesson I came down from the desk, when the chief priest 
came up to me and, whispering in my ear, bid me go to a certain comer of the synagogue 
which, having done, the door-keeper bid me to strip. Accordingly I stripped myself naked 
down to the waist, tied a napkin about my head, pulled off my shoes and, holding up 
my arms above my head, clasped a sort of pillar in my hands to which the door-keeper 
tied them with a band. Having thus prepared myself for my punishment, the virger came 
to me and with a scourge of leather tongues gave me nine and thirty stripes according 
to the custom of the jews, it being a precept of their Law that the number of stripes shall 
not exceed forty. For these very scrupulous and religious gentlemen take due care not 
to offend by doing too much. During the time of my whipping they sang a psalm. This 
correction being over, I was ordered to sit on the ground and then the Doctor came to 
me and absolved me from my excommunication. So now the gate of heaven, which was 
doubly locked and barred against me before, was flung open all on a sudden. O the 
ridiculous notions and conceits of mortals! After this I put on my clothes and went to 
the door of the synagogue, where I prostrated myself, the door-keeper holding up my 
head whilst all both old and young passed over me, stepping with one foot on the lower 
part of my legs and behaving with ridiculous and foolish gestures, more like monkeys 
than human creatures. When they had all done I got up and being washed and made clean 
by the man who stood by me for that purpose, I went home. Now let nobody say that 
they did not do me honour, for if they scourged me, yet they lamented over me and stroked 
my head. 

O shameless race of men! O detested fathers! You from whom I had nothing 
dishonourable to fear! You who said: «Far be it from us to treat you indecently.» Now 
let anyone who has heard my story judge how decent a spectacle it was to see an old 
man, a person of no mean rank and who was moreover naturally exceedingly modest, 
stripped before a numerous congregation of men, women and children, and scourged 
by order of his judges and those such as rather deserved the name of abject slaves. Let 
him imagine the confusion and anguish such a one must suffer by being obliged to lie 
at the feet of his bitterest enemies and be trampled on by those persons who had already 
loaded him with injuries and insults. Farther let him think he sees his own brothers 
(O monstrous, inhuman and shameful treatment!) who were educated in the same house 
with him joining in an unnatural confederacy with his persecutors, unmindful of that 



APPENDICES 


561 


natural affection with which I always loved them and which was so peculiar to me and 
regardless of the many good offices I had done them, requiting all my tenderness and 
kindness with shameful injuries and disgrace. 

My detested persecutors said in defence of themselves that they only made me a just 
example of punishment to deter others of their communion from open rebellion against 
their ordinances and from writing against their doctors. 

Most wicked wretches and fathers of all untruth! With how much more justice could 
I have made you a public example of punishment to deter you from practising the like 
abuses on men who are sincere lovers of truth, haters of fraud and indifferently the friends 
of all mankind, of whom you are the common enemies, esteeming all others but as the 
beasts and scum of the earth, whilst you arrogantly extol yourselves with vain encomiums 
as the only favourites of heaven; whereas you have really nothing to boast of, unless you 
think it is praiseworthy to live as vagabonds, banished from the society of men, despised 
and hated by all for those ridiculous and absurd customs by which you distinguish 
yourselves from the rest of the world. If you rely on a greater simplicity of manners and 
integrity of life than other men your pretences are very false, who visibly fall short of 
many others in these respects. 

I affirm, therefore, that if I had not wanted power, I might with just cause have 
revenged myself of this contemptible crew for the great injuries and mischiefs they did 
me and which rendered life itself a burden. For who that has any regard to reputation 
could bear to lead an ignominious life? For (as a certain heathen well observed) it is the 
duty of every man either to live with honour or to die bravely. My cause is as far superior 
to theirs as truth is more excellent than falsehood. For whereas they are advocates for 
a fraud, that they may make a prey and slaves of men, I contend nobly in the cause of 
truth and assert the natural rights of mankind, whom it becomes to live suitably to the 
dignity of their nature, free from the burden of superstitions and vain ceremonies. I confess 
it would have been more for my advantage to have been silent from the first and to have 
acquiesced under things just as I had found them. This is a more politic way for men 
who would live free from the insolence of the rabble and the oppression of tyrannical 
governors. For everyone that is intent on self-interest is industrious to suppress truth, 
to lay traps for the ignorant and unwary and to trample justice underfoot. But after I 
was unwarily drawn into and deceived by a false religion and had gone so far as to enter 
the lists with these champions, I thought it more honourable to die bravely than to have 
those mortifying reflections which must necessarily attend a base submission. 

It was a common argument with them to appeal to their majority in number, objec¬ 
ting to me that as I was alone in the opposition I ought to submit to them. 

And indeed, Gentlemen, you are so far in the right that it is the safety and interest 
of a single person to submit to numbers for fear of falling a sacrifice to their power, 
but because it is safe it does not therefore follow it is right ingloriously to quit the field 
to plunderers and robbers. You must therefore allow at least that it is a glorious virtue 
to make the best stand we are able against the haughty invader, lest success and tame 
submission encourage him to his insolence and usurpation. It is indeed the part of a truly 
worthy, a good and generous man to be meek and gentle with those of the same disposi¬ 
tion. But to put on the simplicity of the lamb when we are to engage with the fierceness 
of the lion is foolish and absurd. If to die in our country's cause is deservedly ranked 
among the most glorious actions because our country is a part of ourselves, ought it not 
to be esteemed equally glorious to do the same in defence of our reputation and honour 
which are properly and peculiarly ours and without which we cannot live as becomes 
men? Unless — as you seem to think — to wallow in the dirt of filthy lucre can denominate 
us as such. 

«But» — say these vile scoffers, trusting in the strength of their number more than 
that of their cause — «what availeth your contending with us? What can you do against 
so many?» 

I confess it and lament it as my great misfortune that I am overpowered by your 
multitude. It is owing to this and your bitter reflections on me that my heart burns with 
resentment and indignation and makes me think it unlawful to use fair play towards 
such wicked, arrogant and abandoned wretches. All I can say is, I want the power of 
revenge. 

I know that these adversaries, in order to blacken my reputation and traduce me 
before the illiterate vulgar, would frequently say: «This man is neither jew, Christian 
nor mahometan; he believes no religion at all.» 

But take heed, blind Pharisees, what you say! For though your hearts be full of malice 
and cunning yet, being without light, your tongues betray you. Suppose I was a chris- 



562 


APPENDICES 


tian, what then would you say? It is plain you would call me an idolater and say that 
the true God from whom I had revolted would pass sentence of condemnation on me, 
together with Jesus of Nazareth, the teacher of the Christians. If I was a mahometan, 
we all know what names you would honour me with then. So that it is impossible for 
me to escape your slander and no refuge would be left me but that of falling down at 
your feet and embracing your abominable and carnal institutions. Now, pray, tell me 
if you know of any other religion beside those already mentioned — the two last of which 
you hold to be false and therefore call them deviations from the true one. But methinks 
I hear you allow one more religion to be truly and properly such and by virtue of which 
men may please God. For, say you, if all nations — the jews only excepted (for, by the 
way, you must always distinguish yourselves from the common herd of mankind) — keep 
the Seven Commandments which you affirm Noah to have observed and others before 
Abraham's time, this is sufficient for their salvation. By your own confession, then, there 
is one other religion that I may trust in, though I am descended from the jews. Now let 
me beseech you that I may be permitted to take my chance among the uncircumcised 
or, if I cannot obtain this request, I shall take the benefit of that privilege of my own accord. 

O thou blind Pharisee who, unmindful of that primary Law which was from the begin¬ 
ning and will be so to the end of things, only makest mention of other Laws of a later 
date, all of which thou condemnest except thy own! But, of that, others will judge, whether 
you will or no, according to the rule of right reason, which is the true standard of that 
Law of Nature which you utterly disregard and would fain bury in oblivion, that you 
may lay a grievous and heavy yoke on other men and divest them of their reason and sense. 

As I have touched upon this point, I shall dwell a little on the subject and take notice 
of the excellency of this primary Law. Granting, then, that this Law is the common rule 
of action to all men and suitable to them as they are such, it does certainly link them 
together in the ties of mutual affection and is an utter stranger to those divisions which 
occasion hatred and animosity among men and are the greatest evils that infest society. 
It is that which teaches us the art of living well, which distinguishes between right and 
wrong and points out what is decent and indecent. Whatever is excellent in the Law of 
Moses or any other institution, is perfectly contained in the Law of Nature from which, 
if we deviate never so little, contentions and divisions are the natural consequences. But 
if we err widely from it, who can describe the distraction, confusion and terrible disasters 
that must result from such a defection? What are the most useful precepts in the Law 
of Moses or any other religion, relating to human society and conducing to a friendly 
intercourse with one another? They are chiefly those of honouring our parents and not 
to invade the property of others, whether it be in their lives, their characters or fortunes. 
Now, there is nothing in these which is not dictated by the Law of Nature and does not 
entirely agree with that rule of right reason. We naturally love our children and children 
their parents; brother is affectionate to brother and one friend to another. We cannot 
help desiring that everything belonging to us should be preserved safe and, consequently, 
hate those who disturb our quiet or endeavour to deceive us. From hence it necessarily 
follows that we ought not to do those things which we condemn in others. For, if we 
condemn those who deprive us of our property, the sentence turns upon ourselves if we 
invade another man's. We have here in one view everything that is material and essen¬ 
tial in any other Law. 

As to the distinction of meats, let us leave that to the physicians, who will best instruct 
us which are salutary and which hurtful. With regards to other ceremonials, rites and 
ordinances such as sacrifices, tithes and all that fraudulent trade contrived to support 
the lazy with the profits of the industrious, this is the very cause of our complaint, these 
our misfortunes: that we are misled and deceived in these points by designing men. 

All true Christians must acknowledge what I have advanced and are much to be 
commended where they have banished these impositions, only retaining those things which 
assist us in leading a good moral life. For we cannot be said to live well when we observe 
many vain ceremonies, but only when we live like rational creatures. But it may be said 
that the Law of Moses or the Gospel do contain a more noble and perfect system of duty 
than we are taught by the Law of Nature. One instance is that precept which enjoins 
us to love our enemies. To which I answer that if we once deviate from the light of nature 
and think to substitute something more perfect in its place, discord and disputes 
immediately ensue. For what signifies laying commands on me which I have not in my 
power to obey? For if it is naturally impossible for me to love my enemy, what effect 
can such a Law produce, but dissatisfaction and uneasiness of mind? But if it appears 
not to be impossible to do good to enemies (which we may — and not love them — for 



APPENDICES 


563 


man is naturally prone to humanity and compassion), we cannot from hence deny but 
— in this sense — the Law of Nature is absolutely perfect. 

Now let us consider the inconveniences that arise from deviating very far from the 
Law of Nature. We before asserted that there is a natural affection between parents and 
children, between brothers and friends. Now, any positive Law — let Moses, or who 
will, be the author of it — which commands a father to kill or betray his son, a brother 
his brother, the wife her husband or one friend another for the sake of religion, does 
entirely dissolve and break that universal tie and enjoins men that which, if they do 
perform, will render them notorious offenders against the Law of Nature which abhors 
such practices. 

But why need I instance in these crimes when men have abandoned themselves to 
such a degree of infatuation as to sacrifice their own children by way of burnt offering 
to those idols which they ignorantly worshipped, so void were they of all humanity and 
natural affection? How much happier would it have been if men had kept within those 
bounds which nature had set and not given themselves up to such abominable inven¬ 
tions! Why need I mention the horrors and anxieties with which some superstitious men 
have filled the minds of their fellow creatures and which, had they observed only the 
dictates of nature, they would have been entirely free from? How many live in the state 
of despair! How many die martyrs to various opinions that have been instilled into them 
by others! How many devote themselves to a miserable life, tormenting their bodies, giving 
themselves up to solitude and sadness, perpetually disquieting their minds with apprehen¬ 
sions and making themselves wretched here, for fear of being so hereafter! 

To these and innumerable other evils does false religion, invented by weak and wicked 
men, subject us poor mortals. I speak by woeful experience, for I am one of the deluded 
who have been fatally deceived by such impostors and ruined by credulity. But it is said 
again, if there be no other Law than that of Nature and if men have not a firm belief 
of a future state and are not awed by the dread of eternal punishment, what will be suffi¬ 
cient to refrain them from doing evil continually? 

These are inventions of your own which there is much reason to apprehend are with 
a view to your own advantage, at least with the same design that people tell stories to 
children of spirits and suchlike, to frighten them into a compliance with their wills and 
to keep them in awe. These stratagems have the desired effect whilst they continue 
children, but when they come to the use of their reason they laugh at the cheat and no 
longer stand in fear of such tales. Just so ridiculous are your frauds and only fit to impose 
upon children and fools, whereas they who see into them deride both the cheats and the 
authors. I will not here examine the lawfulness of such frauds, seeing you who are the 
contrivers of them do allow in your own Law that evil is not to be done that good may 
come of it, unless you think it no evil to invent lies to the prejudice of others in their 
most important concerns and to frighten weak people out of their senses. Whereas, had 
you the least spark of true religion or awe in yourselves, you must be under the greatest 
dread of future punishment for having introduced so much mischief into the world, for 
having excited so much discord and division among men and for all your impious and 
execrable doctrines whereby you are the occasion of setting parents and children against 
each other. 

Give me leave here to propose the following question: if these groundless fears which 
you instil into the minds of men are contrived on purpose to restrain that natural malignity 
which is inherent in them and to keep within the bounds of their duty those who would 
otherwise lead immoral lives, must not you at the same time reflect that yourselves are 
men of like passions with them, naturally averse to what is good, prone to evil, injurious, 
without compassion or mercy? But I see everyone of you filled with rage at so insolent 
a question and justifying his own conduct. «What, are we not all pious and merciful and 
strict adherers to truth and justice? » I answer: What you thus boastingly say of yourselves 
is notoriously false. Your accusation of all other men is scandalously unjust, whose natural 
propensity to evil you pretend to correct with your fictitious terrors. Impiously you reflect 
on the majesty and goodness of God, whom you represent as a tyrant and a cruel destroyer, 
and cast a severe reproach on human nature in supposing it to be subjected to so 
deplorable and wretcned a fate as if the common calamities of life that happen to man 
were not sufficient for his portion of misery. But, granting the corruption of man is very 
great, which I readily allow (yourselves being a sufficient proof of it, for otherwise you 
could not be capable of such scandalous forgeries!) yet, upon this supposition, you ought 
to look out for a more effectual remedy that may be sufficient to expel this general disorder 
without introducing a worse in its place and to lay aside those impositions which are 
only fit to frighten children and simple folk. But if the disorder is incurable, then cease 



564 


APPENDICES 


your vain delusive pretences and no longer — like impudent quacks — promise men that 
health which you are not able to give them, but be content with establishing among 
yourselves just and reasonable laws providing rewards for the good and suitable 
punishments for the bad, defending the cause of the injured against the violence of the 
oppressor that there be no complaining that justice is not executed in the earth and that 
there is none to deliver the weak out of the hand of the strong. 

In a word, if men would follow the dictates of right reason and live according to 
the laws which nature dictates to them, they would all mutually love and compassionate 
one another. Everyone would then contribute his utmost to the relief of his neighbor 
under any affliction or, at least, no man would injure another, for that would be acting 
contrary to human nature. Indeed, many of the evils that happen in life do arise from 
hence that men have invented laws directly repugnant to those of nature and thereby 
give occasion for one man to injure and persecute another. 

On the other hand, many deceitfully circumvent the unwary by their extraordinary 
pretences to piety, using religion as a cloak to make a prey of such as are superstitiously 
inclined. These may aptly be compared to a thief in the night who treacherously attacks 
us when we are off our guard and do not suspect any danger. Yet these are the men who 
are continually vaunting: «I am a jew (or: I am a Christian); doubt not my integrity! Rely 
upon me, I will not deceive you!» 

Infamous wretches! He who pretends to be neither of these and only calls himself 
a man is far preferable to you, for if you will not believe him, you may stand upon your 
guard. But who can defend himself against you, hypocrites!, who under the mask of sanc¬ 
tity — like the thief before mentioned — come in by stealth and murder us in our sleep. 

There is one thing beyond many others that I wonder at and vei*y surprising it is: 
how the Pharisees, living in a Christian country, come to enjoy so much liberty as to judicial 
power and authority. For I may safely affirm that if Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Chris¬ 
tians worship, was to preach at this very time at Amsterdam and it pleased the Pharisees 
to scourge him (as their forefathers did) for opposing and condemning their traditions 
and hypocrisy, they might do it with freedom and impunity. This is certainly just matter 
of reproach and what ought not to be tolerated in a free city which professes to protect 
men in the peaceable enjoyment of their liberty and yet does not screen them from the 
insolence and injurious treatment of the Pharisees. And, therefore, where a man cannot 
be allowed an advocate to defend his cause or a judge to punish the injuries done him, 
it is not to be wondered at if he takes all opportunities to defend and revenge himself. 

I have here given the true history of my life, having fairly laid before you the part 
and character I acted on the vain stage of this world during the course of a most variable 
and unsettled life. Now, readers, judge impartially and deliver your opinion on what I 
have written, like brave and honest men, with freedom and truth; and if there is anything 
in my story which moves your compassion, let it teach you to pity me and to lament the 
miserable condition of mankind in which you yourselves are equal sharers. That it may 
be known who was the author of this, let me observe that whilst I lived in Portugal a 
Christian I was called Gabriel Acosta but when I came over to the jews (which I wish 
I had never done) my name with a little variation was changed into Uriel. 



INDEXES 




INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 

(The order followed is that of the Ferrara Bible) 


Genesis 


1, 1 

535 

23, 19-20 

525 

1, 2 

47 

25, 11 

464 

1,20 

46 

25, 19 

453 

1,24 

321, 479 

26, 7-10 

411 

1,26 

384, 434 

27, 28 

464 

1,27 

444 

27, 37 

353 

1,28 

312, 371, 452, 451 

27,46 

325, 485 

2, 7 

321, 387, 436, 450, 452, 

32, 12 

299 


476, 479, 480, 482 

32, 30 

519 

2, 16-17 

460 

41,45 

303 

2, 17 

313, 319, 323-324, 459, 

46, 7 

304 


476, 484 

46, 8 

303 

2, 23 

472 

46, 15 

303 

3, 6 

295 

47, 9 

443 

3, 19 

313, 316-317, 460, 461, 

47, 29-32 

354 


470, 471 

47, 29-30 

525 

3, 22 

460 

47, 30 

354 

4, 3 

384 

49, 1 

401 

5, 3 

312, 451, 453 

49, 9 

29 

7,21-22 

385 

50, 5 

525 

8,21-22 

420 



9, 4-5 

365 

Exodus 


9, 10 

481 



12, 11-16 

411 

3, 3 

286 

15, 2-3 

313, 462 

3, 6 

352, 445 

15, 8 

462 

3, 15 

541 

15, 12 

462 

4, 8 

401 

15, 15 

354 

12, 2 

547 

15, 16 

331, 496, 536 

12,40 

543 

18, 8 

299 

13, 9 

28, 291-292 

18, 27 

317, 471 

13, 16 

28, 291 

20, 2-13 

411 

13, 19 

525 

20, 11 

475 

14, 22 

541 

20, 17 

545 

14, 29 

541 

20, 18 

475 

14,31 

536 

21, 12 

453 

15, 10 

355 

22, 2 

297 

16, 27 

304 



568 


16, 29 

304 

16, 30 

541-542 

18, 13-15 

545 

18, 19 

545 

20, 3 

393 

20, 5-6 

330, 495, 498 

21, 2 

541 

21, 12-14 

281 

21, 18-19 

279 

21, 28 

376 

21,28-30 

283-284 

21, 32-33 

284 

21,37 

280 

21, 37 

288 

22, 1 

282 

23, 15 

339, 507 

23, 19 

298 

24, 12 

9, 544 

26, 26 

279 

27, 8 

544 

32, 32 

319, 324, 391, 485-486 

33, 11 

356, 446 

34, 20 

339, 507 

34, 26 

298 

34, 28 

544 

Leviticus 

1, 2 

541 

3, 17 

449 

5, 23 

289 

7, 26 

449 

10, 1 

301 

10, 1-2 

286 

10, 5 

286 

17, 11 

449 

19, 31 

490 

20, 14 

285 

21, 9 

285 

22, 20-24 

298 

22, 27 

299 

23,27 

30 

22, 28 

299 

23, 32 

30, 549 

23,40 

27, 30, 294, 541-542 

23,42 

27, 295 

24, 10-16 

544 

24, 19-20 

277 

25, 28 

288 

26, 13 

291 

26, 43 

276 


INDEXES 


Numbers 


10, 35 

512 

11, 6 

381 

11, 15 

325, 485486 

11, 19-20 

300 

11,25 

47 

12, 2-8 

359 

14, 7-10 

209 

15, 16 

541, 543 

15,31 

275, 376, 459 

15, 32-34 

272 

15, 32-36 

544 

15, 37-41 

26 

15, 38 

290 

21, 7 

545 

27, 1-11 

545 

27, 5-6 

272 

28, 11 

547 

29, 7 

527, 548 

30, 4-8 

289 

35, 5-6 

545 

35, 10 

541, 545 

36, 5-6 

272 

36, 10 

272 

Deuteronomy 

2, 13 

297 

4, 40 

376, 410 

5, 6 

27 

5, 16 

376 

6, 4 

535 

6, 4-9 

305, 542 

6, 5 

528 

6, 6 

291, 293 

6, 8 

28, 291 

6, 9 

542 

7, 9-10 

330, 495 

8, 16 

338, 513 

9, 9-11 

544 

9, 26 

545 

10, 10 

544 

10, 12 

342, 410, 529 

10, 22 

543 

11, 18 

28 

11, 20 

542 

11,21 

421 

12, 23 

448 

13, 26 

326, 489 

14, 1-2 

526 



INDEXES 


569 


14,21 

298 

25, 25 

381 

16, 1 

548 

25, 29 

375, 458, 522 

16, 16 

541 

25, 29-35 

376 

17, 8-9 

540 

26, 24 

393 

17, 18 

272 

28, 3 

290 

18, 11 

490 

28, 7-20 

319, 326, 476, 488 

18, 20-22 

326, 489 

28, 19 

327, 491 

19,6 

282 



19, 11-13 

282 

2 Samuel 


19, 18-21 

278 



19,21 

280 

12, 11 

396 

20, 19 

448 

12, 13 

503 

22, 6-7 

299 

12, 22-23 

329, 492 

22, 7 

375-376, 459 

12, 23 

494 

23, 19 

289 

14, 14 

382 

23, 25-26 

302 



24, 6 

367, 449 

1 Kings 


24, 16 

396 



25, 9 

10 

8, 65 

548 

25, 11-12 

280 

18, 31-36 

430 

26, 14 

409 

21, 27 

527-528 

28, 23 

423 

21,29 

528 

28, 64-67 

389 



29, 3 

349 

2 Kings 


29,21 

401 



30, 3 

518 

2, 11 

493 

30, 5 

518 

6, 5 

329, 492 

30, 10-11 

276 

13, 21 

526 

31, 6 

500 

14, 6 

396 

32, 6 

352 

22, 2 

497 

32, 7 

483, 540 

23, 25 

497 

32, 22 

287 



32, 39 

487 

Isaiah 


32, 43 

408, 525 





5, 20 

501 

Joshua 


5,21 

537 



6, 3 

433, 473 

5, 14 

519 

8, 19 

327, 489 



26, 2 

499 

Judges 


26, 2 

537 



26, 4 

344, 433 

8, 17 

430 

26, 13-14 

509 

9, 8 

296 

26, 14 

397, 505, 509-510 



26, 14-15 

335, 505, 511 

1 Samuel 


26, 19 

320, 334, 336, 406, 477, 




494, 505,507,510-511,517 

2, 6 

508 

27, 6 

336, 506 

14, 39 

324 

30, 33 

355, 387 

14, 44 

324 

31, 3 

47 

20, 27 

547 

35, 10 

517 

22, 16 

324 

38, 3 

533 



570 


INDEXES 


40, 26 

519 

Haggai 


48, 12 

512 



49, 15 

423 

2,9 

401 

49, 16 

292 



50, 6 

528 

Zechariah 


53, 2-3 

499 



53, 7 

528 

12, 1 

47 

57, 16 

47, 356, 444, 451, 480 

13, 2 

47 

58, 13 

373 



61, 8 

289 

Malachi 


64, 3 

375-376, 458, 518 



65, 4 

409 

1, 2-3 

352, 443 

66, 22 

469 

1, 13 

289 



3, 23 

493 

Jeremiah 


Psalms 


3, 22 

435 



8, 8-9 

276 

1, 3 

297 

11, 16 

296 

7, 13-14 

331, 496 

17, 9-10 

395 

8, 6 

434 

33, 25-26 

421 

8, 6-7 

384 

36, 26 

504 

9, 11 

500 

46, 3 

11 

13, 4 

473 

46, 28 

398, 509 

13, 4-5 

315, 466 

48, 47 

509 

14, 1 

383 

49,6 

509 

16, 9-10 

503 

49, 39 

509 

16, 10 

320, 334, 501-502 



16, 11 

397, 502 

Ezekiel 


17, 5 

356, 445 



17, 15 

357 

2 

400 

19, 12 

537 

2,2 

47 

25, 13 

463, 375, 457 

3, 12 

473 

27, 13 

375 

5, 1 

515 

31, 20 

320, 477, 458, 501-504, 

5,6 

276, 283 


524, 530 

14, 14 

515 

31, 20-21 

334 

18,4 

356, 444 

31,21 

502, 504 

24,9 

283 

32, 10 

500 

18, 20 

498 

34, 13-14 

375 

21, 14-15 

389 

35, 2 

11 

26, 20 

487 

37, 25 

332, 496, 500 

32, 23-32 

325, 485 

37, 35-36 

331, 496 

33, 11 

324, 484 

39, 6-7 

314, 465 

33, 15 

324, 484 

39, 13-14 

314, 466 

37, 6 

387 

42, 8 

446 

37, 9 

11, 355 

44,21 

499 

37, 11 

505 

44, 23 

410, 528 

37, 11-12 

335 

44, 27 

512 

37, 12 

477, 505 

49, 16 

356-358, 445 



50, 16-21 

373 



51, 5 

527 



INDEXES 


571 


52, 10 

296 

24, 4 

488 

72, 14 

392 

28, 27 

450 

78, 38-39 

314 



78, 39 

381, 470, 474 

Job 


78, 4 

401 



78, 6 

401 

2, 7 

337, 506 

78, 38-39 

466 

4, 10 

29 

78, 39 

316 

7, 5 

737 

82, 1 

384 

7, 6-10 

315, 466 

88, 11-13 

314, 465 

7, 7 

379, 469-470, 516 

88, 11 

467 

7, 16 

315, 466 

88, 12 

467-468 

7, 17-19 

380 

89, 49 

334, 502 

10, 5 

321, 477 

92, 8 

500 

12, 9-10 

469 

93, 1 

421 

12, 10 

379 

102, 24-28 

422 

14, 13 

358 

102, 27-28 

423 

14, 7-12 

315, 466 

102, 27 

468-469 

14, 11-12 

422 

104, 5 

421 

14,21 

328, 489 

104, 29 

323, 393, 486 

16, 22 

316, 466 

106, 28 

409 

19, 3 

337, 506 

107, 33-35 

423 

19, 20 

338, 506 

115, 17-18 

314, 465 

19, 25 

4-36, 336, 398-399, 506, 

115, 17 

316, 470, 468, 472 


511-513 

116, 9 

325, 485 

19, 25-27 

320, 477 

116, 11 

546 

19, 26-27 

337, 506 

116, 13-15 

326, 486-487 

19, 26 

339, 505, 507 

116, 14 

326 

27, 3 

307 

116,15 

392 

33, 4 

387, 482 

119, 25 

347 

34, 14 

393, 488 

119, 30 

536 

34, 14-15 

322, 379-380, 469, 480 

119, 73 

455 

42, 8-9 

338 

119, 86 

536 

42, 12 

338, 507, 513 

119, 103 

342, 529 



119, 151 

536 

Daniel 


146, 2 

322, 480, 483 



146, 4 

360, 322, 375, 480 

10, 7 

514 

147, 4 

519 

12, 2 

339, 510, 513, 516 

147, 20 

536 

12, 13 

339 

148, 4-6 

421 

12, 13 

513, 518 

150, 6 

480 

Nehemiah 


Proverbs 


8, 15 

295 

3, 3 

291 



6, 23 

367 

2 Chronicles 


11, 31 

332, 496 



16, 4 

395 

7, 8-9 

301, 548 

19,21 

389 

21, 19 

525 

20, 27 

367, 452, 454, 481 

24, 20-21 

394 



35, 21-22 

394 



572 


INDEXES 


Song of Songs 


3,21 

47 



3, 22 

318, 471 

8, 6 

291 

4, 3 

314, 462, 464 



6, 3 

314 

Lamentations 


7, 1 

465 



7, 15 

500 

4, 2 

488 

7, 16 

491 



8, 17 

333, 497 

Ecclesiastes 


9, 4-6 

327, 489 



9, 10 

322, 480 

2, 4 

450 

11, 13 

318, 471 

2, 11 

450 

12, 2-3 

360 

3, 19 

311-312, 318, 321, 447, 

12, 7 

46, 357, 359-360, 454, 461 


450, 471, 479 

12, 14 

483 

3, 20-21 

318, 471, 474 

21, 7 

47 



INDEX OF PROPER NAMES 

(Biblical worthies are not included) 


Abeniacar (Joseph) 556 
Aboab (Abraham) 
see Dias (Duarte) 

Eanes (Dinis) 

Aboab (Imanuel) 3 
Aboab (Isaac) 3 
Aboab (Isaac Matatia) 
alias Eanes (Dinis) 3 
Aboab (Jacob) 

see Rodrigues (Jacome) 

Aguilar (Mose Refael de) 11, 50 
Albert of Austria 4 
Albiac (Gabriel) 1, 5 
Albo (Joseph) 44 

Almeida (Joao-Felix Pereira dos San¬ 
tos) XIII 

Alvares (Samuel) 536 
Aquinas (Tomas) 39-40, 346 
Aristotle 38-39, 40-41, 44, 47, 361, 
363-365, 370 
Assun^ao (Diogo de) 5 
Augustine 39, 451, 535 
Averroes 39-41, 44 
Avicenna 39, 44 
Azevedo (Amador de) 7 
Azevedo (Pedro de) 2 

Basto (Artur de Magalhaes) 1 
Boer (Harm den) XII-XIII, 14 
Bonifaccio (Baldassare) 44-47 
Brandao (Bento da Costa) 1-4, 6 
Brandao (Jacome da Costa) 1-2, 4, 6, 8 
Brandao (or Brandoa, Paula) 2 
Brandao (Paul) 2 
Bravo (Alvaro Gomes) 7 
Bravo (Francisco) 13 
Bravo (Heitor Mendes) 8 


Calvin (Jean) 47, 451 
Camoes (Luis de) 24, 47, 332 
Caro (Joseph) 3 

Carvalho (Joao Manuel de Almeida 
Saraiva de) 5-6 

Castro (David Henriques de) 19 
Castro (Isaac Orobio de) 23 
Castro (Rodrigo de) 

alias Nahmias (David) 10 
Chamorro (Miguel) 7 
Cicero (Marcus Tulius) 47 
Cohen (Samuel) 16 
Costa (Aaron da) 

see Costa (Jeronimo da) 

Costa (Abraham da) 

see Brandao (Jacome da Costa) 
Costa (Branca da) 1-2, 19 
Costa (Caterina da) 2 
Costa (Gracia da) 2 
Costa (Jeronimo da) 2, 4, 8 
Costa (Joao da) 4, 8, 12, 17 
Costa (Joseph Israel da) 
see Costa (Joao da) 

Costa (Maria) 

alias Costa (Faustina da) 7-8 
Costa (Mecia da) 2 
Costa (Miguel da) 2-4, 8, 12, 17 
Costa (Mordecai Israel da) 
see Costa (Miguel da) 

Costa (Rachel da) 19 
Costa (Sara da) 

see Costa (Branca da) 

Costa (Violante da) 6 
Cricias 362 
Cunha (Joao Peres da) 
see Costa (Joao da) 

Curiel (Abraham) 556 



574 


INDEXES 


David (Abraham ben) 43 

Dias (Abraham van Mozes Vaz) 1 

Dias (Duarte) 

alias Aboab (Abraham) 3 
Dinis (Branca) 

see Costa (Branca da) 

Dinis (Marguerida) 2 

Eanes (Dinis) 2-3, 6 
Eanes (Rodrigo) 
see Naar (Isaac) 

Eber (Paul) 542 

Epicurus 38,351,372,382-383 

Episcopius (Simon) 23 

Eliezer (ben Joseph the Galilian) 508 

Feijo (Antonio Maria Maciel de Cas¬ 
tro) XIII 

Fernandes (Florenga) 2 
Fernandes (Miguel) 2 
Ficino (Marsilio) 40 
Fonseca (Antonio da) 4 
Fonseca (Isaac Aboab da) 16, 49 
Fonseca (Jeronimo da) 2 
Franco (Jacob) 556 
Fuks-Mansfeld (Rena) XIII 

Galen 368 

Gamaliel II 516 

Geiger (Abraham) 11-12 

Gluck (Andrew) XIII 

Gomes (Alvaro) 41 

Gomes (Jezue Pinharanda) 14 

Gregory of Nyssa 39 

Ha-Levi (Jacob) 18 
Ha-Levi (Uri) 2 
Hamis (Jacob) 22 
Hillel the Great 31, 274 
Hillel II 549 
Hippocrates 533 
Homem (Amtonio) 5 
Hoogewoud (Frits) XIII 

Irenaeus 39, 445 
Isabel (Infanta) 4 
Israel (Benjamin) 556 
Israel (Menasseh ben) 

alias Soeiro (Manuel Dias) 16, 49, 
113, 120 


Jacobs (Dina) 20 
Jerome 399, 451, 542 
Jesurun (Rafael) 556 
John II (King) 3 
Joseph the Galilean 397 
Josephus (Flavius) 32, 275, 345 
Justin Martyr 39, 445 

Kaplan (Yosef) 1, 21 
Keck (Egon) XIII 
Kristeller (Paul Oskar) 41 

Lakish (Simeon b.) 42 
Leoni (Aaron) 9, 308 
Lima (Diogo de) 12 
Limborch (Philip van) 23 
Lucas (Jean-Maximilien) 22 
Lucretius 47 

Luther (Martin) 41, 346, 451, 542 

Maimonides (Moses) 14, 43-44, 371, 535 
Mascarenhas (Jorge de) 6-7, 12 
Mela (Pomponius) 345 
Mendes (Abraham) 20-22 
Milano (Abraham) 

see Pina (Diogo de) 

Modena (Leon) 8-10, 12, 22/24-32, 44, 
47, 271, 279, 290, 292- 
294, 549 

Montano (Benito Arias) 543 
Mortera (Saul Levi) 10, 16, 18, 20, 

48-49, 278 

Muller (Johann) XI, 23 
Munster (Sebastian) 543 
Mussafia (Benjamin) 13 
Naar (Isaac) 3 
Nahmias (David) 

see Castro (Rodrigo de) 

Nunes (Beatriz) 2 
Nunes (Isabel) 2 

Offenberg (Adri K.) XII-XIII 
Origen 39, 44, 362 
Orobio (Balthasar) 

see Castro (Isaac Orobio de) 

Osier (Jean-Paul) 11-12 
Osorio (Jacob Ellegoot) 20 
Osorio (Ribca Aboab) 8 

Pacifico (Isaac) 11 
Pagnino (Sancti) 330, 399, 542 



INDEXES 


575 


Pardo (David) 16, 20 
Pereira (Joao Pinto) 555 
Pina (Diogo de) 8, 13 
Pina (Duarte Esteves de) 
alias Milano (Isaac) 13 
Pina (Manuel de) 18 
Pina (Miguel Esteves de) 
see Costa (Miguel da) 

Pina Martins (Jose Vitorino de) XIII 
Pinelli (Antonio) 45 
Plato 38-39, 41, 47, 369, 388, 435-436, 
438, 534 

Pliny the Elder 47, 349 
Pomponazzi (Pietro) 40-41, 47, 49 
Pythagoras 38, 534 
Rasi (Rashi) 286, 445 
Ravesteyn (Paul van) 14, 16 
Raz (Amitai bar Yedaya ibn) 
see Modena (Leon) 

Reuchlin (Johann) 535 
Revah (Israel Salvator) 1-2, 3 
Rodrigues (Alvaro) 2-3 
Rodrigues (Jacome) 

alias Aboab (Jacob) 2-3 
Rodrigues (Violante) 2 
Romes (Miguel, alias Isaac) 13 


Saadiah Gaon 341, 425 
Saperstein (Marc) 48 
Sasportas (Jacob) 278 
Silva (Antonio Jose da) 5 
Silva (Rebecca da ) 13 

Soares (Alvaro) 555 
Socrates 38 
Sonne (Isaiah) 28 
Spinoza (Baruch de) 48 
Sulam (Sara Copia) 44-47 

Tertullian 39, 451 
Thott (Otto) 17 
Torres (David Nunes) 17 

Usque (Samuel) 389 

Vaz (Leonor) 2 
Vidas (Eliya b. Mose) 22 
Vilareal (Manuel Fernandes) 5 
Vitoria (Dionisia de) 2 
Vlessing (Odette) 19-20 

Whiston (John) 1, 556 




577 


INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTERS 


Amsterdam 15-16, 19-20 
Brazil 4 

Carthusian Monks 350 

Church Fathers 39, 47, 445 

Citron 31, 542 

Conimbricences 370 

Consolagao as tribulagdes de Israel 389 

Constantinople Pentateuch 272 

Day of Atonement 30-31 
Dutch Reformed Church 47 

Exemplar Humanae Vitae 1,19, 23-24, 

556-564 

Expulsion from Spain 3 

Gehenna 42 

Hamburg 8-9, 10, 13, 15, 

Holy Earth (Terra Santa) 408 
Houtgracht 20 
Houtkopersdwarsstraat 19 

Inquisition (Portuguese) 389, 410-411 

Karaites 341 

Lateran Council (Fifth) 40 

Magen Ve-Sina 11-12, 29, 31, 50, 271 

Malqut (Scourging) 21 

Mishna 

Abot 274 
Arakin 287 
Baba Qama 289 
Eduyot 42 
Kidushin 279 
Makkot 278 


Rosh Hashana 300 
Sanhedrin 43, 287, 346, 459 
Sukka 295 

New Testament 38, 445 
Oporto 2-6, 7 
Phaedo 38 

Pharisees 15, 329, 340-341, 345, 371, 
405-407, 515, 523 

Qol Sakai 28-29 

Resurrecion de los Muertos 49 

Romance 323 

Rua de Sao Miguel 3, 7 

Sao Salvador de Vila Cova de Lixa 6 
Sumptuary Laws 413 

Tefillin (Phylacteries) 26-28 
Tractatus Theologico-Politicus 48 
Talmud (Babylonian) 

'Aboda Zara 42 
Baba Batra 315 
Baba Metsia 302 
Baba Qama 290 
Erubin 327 
Keritot 449 

Ketubot 43, 353, 444, 449, 525 
Megilla 519, 533 
Menahot 306 
Nidda 328 
Rosh Hashana 486 
Sanhedrin 42, 216, 281-282, 286, 
346, 410, 459, 498, 508, 
526, 542 
Sota 443, 542 
Sukka 31 
Yebamot 452, 498 



578 


INDEXES 


Talmud (Jerusalem) 
Kilayim 353 
Moed Katan 360 
Sanhedrin 498 
Sukkot 31 
Yebamot 360 
Tower of Babel 551 


Utrecht 18 

Venice 9-10, 18-19, 21, 44-48 
De Veritate Religionis Christianae Arnica 
Collatio 27 
Vulgate 398-399 













Rua de Sao Miguel, Oporto, anno 1993. 



L» /-. r 


y/* ' —T rftA** * .&*•+** 

s+:(*a ^ /****■ ^ C r+mrtit** fi>t At r+*$Zf*, f* £**&€* 


f» ■ 1 ■■ --- ^ .v. rjrrttif* r'j> r •■• 

T 1 /iJUtrTcfi S*t*A* f£. *>£, <er+.<*A(v.tsi+ ~S; 

" j,A/>*&** T'+~* rtMwr’rtrO* .Wf +£ $€T*C^ms> t.-Jrfi* 

/ s/jIl 4 •* «**& , '*/* f**'! , 

&*Ji* •' 

f ** u & r *»£ '*?&**• ;f rt' *’ 

^ aZ-£* *»* , v» *<>v# '- * 


' <£+ 4 r-» Terr/.*** I- ^ 

3t~2^£ 

/» / 
’.<0*’! <M*' rr% / 

<*ZZ7L- Z *M - ~~} *■■ ■ ■*: - .— * 

7Z~>- '—■ ^"T" 

/•x ^->r* ^ _ ,„f\» *..&, .> '/ *tA»*/«/ Jflx/w* f 

„„ - e*J6tp ^' X 

2 * «.__ % r V/ ^ ^«i'~" 

< «- 4 *^T ._ ., . .;• . -. V x ^ 

. xPxfc *<•* ~* , ' iT ‘~~s-s' T 1> ‘ / JZSr^ 

• ,. 3 ^ 

e/^SL^ TST~~*r; <?**('^ ■ t y-.~’'T 0 >-&**^ r- O ^ ^ / 

.i£" 

/**£ 


xJti* tm s—tX+~ 
■f —-—- 


U 4m f? rM *T* \ T\ - * / . M fr/rr *» rt *»++—«* *' 

^‘' x sjzTj ^ 

v A~*«. «* r r, .. _~ r< ,/r^.L ^ 

/*' ■£“ ~ - *- -«f<r -4 

tAT'^t''- ■^-■ ■- •>«•• -' -^^-r 

AS. M IrMnr(f<i0 '~c+» T m /- /• 

} *' £* <&>' 

sf ■< f vr X ^ 

/• ^ A** ***** A^» •'* ^ # ^ - 

' t S* w,rf *''?>*' /* / /* ^ V^r’ ■^ rr 'XT'. 


^ # /# ^ 


Document transcribed and signed by Uriel da Costa, Coimbra, 1601. 

(British Library). 



, e **+< &*&* - 

. ***** /?*• s+StrV* Pv * 

*+* ^ #r/-< .* c r~^ 

■—* y - _ . _ S*/<* 





_ ^ / 

<Wl^l’^'*ri #374 p£ 


V A „, "~ v 

T 7 O # 


V +~X+ r 7*+9* O 


^ ' -f* . £> ^ "•■ - 4r 

V>>- ^ - ‘ t ~;V g 


,/ /iSU#* ^ *"* % '*s<Z+r pniC**-#*** 1 ** *** *9?”” - 

”$!*". ..•' - •;-5o / !i' 

5*"'^^^ , ^i?;V 

^t> f; *'■ ' • y4 n , r ,;~s* ** y 7 "n* 

™£ 

£ *'?*/'<'* J fr*~ '~"-*zr rr * 

&e*V ^ - TVO, 

^ ****?***"*** 1 ^ ' 

/ “" ’7 ^~>.. r,'Jl.,.r> «■■■ 

/*> r ^' **^**11 ^ T su £*— 

„. t. *&r- » . ' T-. 

^ s^Sly, 

‘ ■' _y. \« -% .- ysw' •"""' ■*-■' ‘ ' 

.: ... ^g, 

^ jr^rr'i 


** 


6 



£V 


/ . 



a 


^ */m htn/L tf> 


*-rs 

■-*■ A 

•n . 



Portrait of Leon Modena. 

(Detail enlaged from the title page of the 1638 Venice edition of his Historia de’ riti hebraici). 

















rrjiYIAL&6 J*A,C&L. Ac*n*+ &fb* fur64,1m- 

tuuYvb* d^h,/ba!U fist f+rj tun ***** PtuC a£&*&' tfh&fa 

f~?id nt^*^ rfttn+cJL ttrA^dL C+~&x-%f 

*■ i Hr*2*- £p / lic&i&* J*rt *£?J l ‘ 

V*^4y *>>*)* i&wzdl —- A/yt^J^hA^ t2 *$>-&*£{ A$x~> 

fyp&Jlf cJhf^A 'A^aMA*C)t&t. ^ j£r*n}t±tA- ^ w*^ \ j£ pE^tm*. £f»e 


fyJX* y^ fpAjUt 'fuu** *r»+xZ %/c- adlAiJt'* ^Thc ! 2^i^^d . <?V 

/ fct*)+~~ 1 f %****.cJ^ ^UJt y*nd%&t\j 

to sy C^ZtjJX*' * £■* c£?+^fc* 

9 

^ *2 c nt^diuji, ^tua. /&*%€-* 


<*» *a*> C'lu- __ 


•" v?» T ' < w 

>1 4t " &*&€-' 


L^faffaL 

y ~ S^jCt^ri ^ 

p^ CJ. ^ ^ „ . 

xft** , < ? c »o s>^'r 

<±7*6f£. -■— 1 





Confirmation of Uriel da Costa's excommunication, Amsterdam, 1623. 

(Gemeente Archief, Amsterdam). 



T R A T A D O 

D A . 

Immortalidade: 

Da dim* 

Compoftopolo Doutor Scmucl da fihta y em 

quctambemfe mottrd 4 ignorancia de certocontra - 
riddor de mffo tempo que entre ontros mujtos err os 
de* neiie delirio de ter para Ji & pnbUcar que 
d alma de bomcm d cabajuntamcn- 
* te com o corpo. 



A AMSTERDAM , 

Imprcfo cm cafc de Paulo de Ravcftcyn. 
Anno da criacao do inuodo J 3 8 $. 


Semuel da Silva, Tratado da Immortalidade da Alma, Amsterdam, 1623, title page. 

(Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, Amsterdam). 




Houtkopersdwarsstraat (olim Vloonburghsteeg), Amsterdam, anno 1993. 







ESTE LIVRO 
FOI PREPARADO 
PARA A IMPRESSAO 
NAS OFICINAS GRAFICAS 
DE BARBOSA & XAVIER, LDA. 
BRAGA - PORTUGAL 
POR MARIO FERNANDES 
COM ORIENTAQAO TECNICA 
DE FELIX A. RIBEIRO 
AOS 15 DIAS DE MAIO 
DO ANO DE 1993